|
|
|
Ever since the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the bombing of an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, which killed 22 people and injured 59 others, officials all across Europe have been taking extra measures to keep fans and citizens safe when musicians come to town. In Scotland, where only a fraction of police officers carry weapons, authorities announced that they would increase the number of armed officers at Glasgow’s Bellahouston Park, where rap star Eminem is scheduled to perform Thursday, according to the Glasgow Evening Times. Scotland, which is about 250 miles from Manchester, has remained on high terror alert since the May attack and has responded by beefing up the armed officer presence in many of the country’s most historic and visited sites. Back in June, the Scottish Police Federation said it would increase the number of armed officers from 350 to 474, explaining that the country was “woefully under-equipped, under-resourced and underprepared” to combat a potential terror attack, the BBC reported. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now Ahead of Eminem’s concert, which some 35,000 people are expected to attend, police in Glasgow will also shut down a number of roads surrounding the park. Event commander Superintendent John McBride said that residents and concertgoers should not be alarmed by the heightened armed guard presence, telling the Glasgow Evening Times that the increased presence of armed officers was just another tactic to keep people safe given the recent terror attacks in Spain and the U.K. “We are not expecting and we have no intelligence that anything like that is going to happen here,” McBride said. “Don’t be alarmed, this is nothing unusual.” “We plan for what we don’t expect, and as well as the armed police, we will have some road closures given what happened in Barcelona,” he added. Just a week before Eminem’s Scotland performance, a van drove into a crowd of people in Barcelona, killing 13 people and injuring over 100 more. Hours after the attack, which occurred in the popular tourist area of Las Ramblas, ISIS claimed responsibility. Authorities had to cancel a concert Wednesday in Rotterdam, South Holland, after being notified of a potential terror threat. Officials in Rotterdam were initially contacted by police in Spain who had received a telegram message from a man threatening to attack the Rotterdam Maassilo, where U.S. band Allah-Las was set to perform, BBC reported. |
|
|
|
This article first appeared on the Daily Signal. Ämari Air Base, Estonia—A memorial site for Soviet air force pilots is hidden in the woods just outside the gates of this NATO air base. Some of the monuments are of stone, overgrown and weathered, engraved with a Communist red star and a fallen pilot’s name. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now Other memorials are made from a fighter jet’s vertical stabilizer fin, adorned with the requisite red star and a small photo. Collectively, these forgotten memorials are epitaphs to Estonia’s former Soviet statehood, as well as Ämari Air Base’s Cold War history as a front-line Soviet outpost against NATO. Yet, at this secluded spot on a clear summer day in August, the roar of U.S. Air Force A-10 “Warthog” warplanes broke the bucolic quiescence. A little more than a quarter century ago, the noise of those American jets, at this base 160 miles from the Russian border, would have meant war. However, on this day—26 years after the Soviet Union’s breakup, and 13 years after Estonia joined NATO—those U.S. warplanes were flying as part of a NATO exercise meant to reassure Estonia, and remind Moscow, that the Western alliance is ready to defend its members with military force. “Every exercise that we have with our NATO allies actually sends a pretty strong message to our people and to our potential adversary that NATO is united and that Estonia is secure,” Estonian Army Lt. Simmo Saar told The Daily Signal. An A-10 Thunderbolt fires rockets as it flies by smoke rising from destroyed targets during a U.S. Air Force firepower demonstration at the Nevada Test and Training Range September 14, 2007 near Indian Springs, Nevada. Ethan Miller/Getty The exercise—called Baltic Jungle—was part of Operation Atlantic Resolve, a NATO mission involving U.S. and European partners meant to strengthen cooperation and deter Russian aggression in the wake of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and ongoing proxy war in eastern Ukraine. In Estonia, where Soviet occupation is a living memory, Russian revanchism is considered an existential threat. The increased footprint of NATO military forces in the Baltics under the enhanced forward presence rotational deployments announced in Warsaw in 2016, and the constant drumbeat of military exercises across the Continent under Operation Atlantic Resolve are, therefore, reassuring gestures to Estonians—and meant to serve as a message of deterrence to Moscow. “It shows that we can feel safe, that we are safe, that NATO is working, and that our common values are defended,” Saar said. “So to Estonians, it is pretty important.” Brave New WorldOn August 10, as part of Baltic Jungle, NATO air, ground, and cyber forces simulated the defense of Estonia from a hybrid warfare attack. It’s what the U.S. military calls a “multinational, multidomain exercise,” and it was the first of its kind in Estonia. “Defending Estonia is not just about A-10s, troops, and tanks,” Col. Jori Robinson, 175th Cyberspace Operations Group commander, said during a briefing for NATO military personnel at Ämari Air Base on August 10. “To defend and deter the hybrid threats, the cyber component has to be addressed as well.” Robinson was among a detachment of 270 personnel from the Air National Guard’s 175th Wing—based out of Warfield Air National Guard Base, Maryland—which was on a three-week flying training deployment to Estonia in August. The deployment was part of a state partnership program that dates back to 1993. During the Baltic Jungle exercise, a team of 35 U.S. cyber operators at Ämari Air Base, working alongside five of their Estonian counterparts, responded to a simulated cyberattack in which a hypothetical adversary had infiltrated malware into computers that run maintenance diagnostics on the U.S. A-10s. “[The A-10] is very much a vulnerable platform and we need to be able to protect it just like we did in the old school where we would put a bunch of security forces around an airplane,” said Col. Jonathan Sutherland, U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa director of communications. “Now we have to have those cyber defenders around an airplane,” Sutherland said. While the cyber operators worked from Ämari Air Base, airborne NATO combat units simulated an airfield seizure at a nearby highway in the rural Estonian countryside. In a choreographed flurry, helicopters swooped in, troops spilled out, and the helicopters lifted away. Then, under the watchful eye of U.S. and British commandos, 16 U.S. Air Force A-10s practiced takeoffs and landings on the cordoned-off roadway. The interwoven use of a Cold War-era weapons system like the A-10 with modern cyberwarfare assets is a bellwether for the kind of complex, multidimensional defensive combat tactics NATO needs to hone to defend itself from modern hybrid warfare threats. “The A-10s here can put bombs on target but if they can’t fly, they can’t get the mission done,” Brig. Gen. Randolph J. Staudenraus, wing commander of the 175th Wing, and an A-10 pilot, told The Daily Signal. “So between the cyber operators, that are also included in our wing, with the flying operations, that multidomain piece … that’s what we’re really trying to get at.” Back to the FutureRussia’s modern hybrid warfare doctrine is a modern take on the Soviet Union’s strategy of “deep battle.” Hybrid warfare is not covert warfare. Rather, it’s the combined use of conventional military force with other non-kinetic means such as cyberattacks and propaganda to sow chaos and confusion among the enemy—both on the battlefield and deep behind the front lines. Hybrid warfare is an evolving threat spanning every combat domain. Consequently, the U.S. military and its NATO allies have to be adaptive, not hamstrung by rigid battle plans, and able to anticipate threats before they manifest. Tags: intelligent-substation, goose-messaging-, remote-machine-monitoring-, remote-secure-networks, remote-secure-networking, secure-web-based-scada--, |
|
|
|
Ever wanted to shoot a wild boar, but couldn’t get close enough without scaring it away? Sure, you can hover over one in a chopper, as is legal in Texas, but that’s expensive and prone to scaring the beasts away. Lawmakers in the state have approved a new way of killing feral hogs and coyotes: shooting them from hot air balloons. As reported by the Associated Press, a bill to allow hog-hunting via balloon will now go to Texas governor Greg Abbott for his signature, which would make it law. The legislation, House Bill 3535, passed late Wednesday and would require a license to hunt in balloons, which offer a more stable platform for hunters to set up their shots. Of course, balloons are difficult to control, pigs are fast runners, and much of Texas is covered in tree cover that would make hunting difficult from the air. Representative Mark Keough, a Republican and pastor from The Woodlands, tells the Texas Observer that the method may not be very effective, but it’s worth a try. “We’ve got a problem here, and we are willing to fix it ourself,” he said. “We have that Western, swashbuckling, cowboying type of way to deal with things. It’s part of the culture, it’s different than any other state.” Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now The feral pig problem in Texas is no joke. There are an estimated 2.5 million of the animals and growing, causing more than $50 million in damage per year. They do this as they “smash through fences, decimate crops, eat baby livestock, dig up internet and water lines, ruin golf courses and cause car accidents when they dart across the road,” Kate Murphy astutely notes in the New York Times. “They also carry diseases that have the potential to devastate cattle and domesticated pig operations, as well as infect humans.” In case you’re wondering, the law to allow chopper-driven hog hunts—known as the “pork chopper” bill—was sponsored by Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, then a state rep. Miller supports the controversial use of poison to kill feral hogs, a method recently approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The chemical, known as warfarin, also is used in humans to treat blood clots but is considerably more deadly in many animals. That move has elicited outrage from scientists, wildlife officials and hunters who say that the technique is inhumane, often causing animals to suffer and bleed for a week or more before dying. Australia used warfarin to kill many feral pigs before outlawing the process on the grounds that it causes “extreme suffering.” There also is serious concern that people could accidentally eat poisoned hog meat, no small concern considering wild boar are routinely eaten throughout the south and can fetch high prices. If passed by the governor, the bill would go into effect Sep. 1, 2017. |
|
|
|
Ajax plays its first major European final in 21 years on Wednesday night, when it takes on Manchester United at Friends Arena in Stockholm. Winning the Europa League final provides entry into the lucrative Champions League but that is not the only factor inspiring excitement in Amsterdam. Ajax’s youthful, attacking squad and its performances this season have inspired comparisons with the great Dutch teams of the past. Here is how the Dutch press views its team’s chances in Sweden. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now De Volkskrant Ajax has dusted off the old “Total Football.” Everyone attacks, everyone defends. How could Ajax find itself in a European final again after 21 years? Ajax sparkles on the field with, almost literally, boyish football that refers to more innocent times. Daring football, no matter who the opponent is. But with hardness, too, full of unexpected flourishes. In difficult times for Dutch football, in which conferences have been filled with talk of other playing methods and strategies, Ajax provides a simple answer: A demonstration of football full of flair that passes for Dutch football although many players come from different countries. Danish (Kasper) Dolberg with his pure class, Colombian (Davinson) Sanchez with his physical power, Cameroonian (Andre) Onana with his style, Burkinese (Bertrand) Traore with his frivolousness, Danish (Lasse) Schone with his insight, German (Amin) Younes with his speed, Dutch-Moroccan (Hakim) Ziyech with his creativity… NRC.nl (Ajax manager Peter) Bosz, due to his Feyenoord past, did not announce himself to Ajax supporters like manna from heaven, but he was the undisputed choice of Frank de Boer. Bosz had to bring fun back into the arena. He managed to play like he did at Heracles and Vitesse at Ajax, but with better players. Bosz made an impression on the international stage with the young team, who he completely transformed in a year's time. By reaching the final, he overlooked the prospect of a football identity in crisis: attack still pays off. Trouw (from an interview with former Ajax and Netherlands international Arnold Muhren) You can be young and inexperienced, but the most important thing is that you have quality. Dolberg and Sanchez are very young, but they have already gained a lot of experience as internationals for their country. That's good. But in the end, it is about the quality of a player. Eventually, I think Ajax wins 1-0 or 2-1. Ajax will attack frivolously with attractive football and Manchester United will be in its own half retreating and waiting, hoping for a fast counter. The difference in playing styles will be huge. Tags: automation, industrial-transport, inhand, inhand network, inhand networks, InHand Networks - Global Leader in Industrial IoT, Global Leader in Industrial IoT |
|
|
|
This article first appeared on Just Security. Countless Rohingya refugees have tried to record the ethnic cleansing of their communities by turning to Facebook, the social network that promised to give a voice to the voiceless. Rather than finding solidarity, they face censorship, with Facebook deleting their stories and blocking their accounts. Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now The Rohingya are a majority-Muslim ethnic group primarily living in Buddhist-majority Myanmar. A recent wave of government-sponsored violence has driven an estimated 500,000 Rohingya from Myanmar since August. Facebook’s mistake shows the danger of censorship and raises the question of which group might be targeted next. When vendors and websites claim to have the tools to target unwanted speech, we need to ask what biases they are bringing to the task. Many of the organizations proposing censorship technologies have a singular focus: Muslim extremism, ignoring the threat posed by white supremacists. If we let the platforms we all depend-on deploy tools that selectively censor one ideology, all users will suffer. For years, a growing chorus of advocates called for internet platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to do more to restrict extremist content. Using technology to fight hi-tech radicalization sounds like a good idea in theory, but new technologies usually have their problems, and we must expect that censorship software will misidentify harmless content as violent or extremist. We’ve seen this problem before. A decade ago, civil society groups objected that library and school content filters would not just block obscene content, but would also censor valuable information and literature about health, sexuality, women’s rights, and LGBTQI issues. Boats full of people continue to arrive along the shores of the Naf River as Rohingya come in the safety of darkness September 30, on Shah Porir Dwip island, Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Over a half a million Rohingya refugees have fled into Bangladesh since late August during the outbreak of violence in Rakhine state causing a humanitarian crisis in the region with continued challenges for aid agencies. Paula Bronstein/Getty The risks of this “digital redlining” are spreading to even impact the platforms we use at home. Part of the problem is that censorship software is uniquely challenging to make. When only one community or viewpoint is targeted, the errors will go unnoticed by the general public, and most users won’t understand the number of harmless even positive posts being blocked. With most customers blind to the true cost of this censorship, the service provider is far less likely to respond to complaints, no matter how valid. The situation is even worse, since the people designing these programs will inject their own views, skewing the decision about what is “dangerous,” and the tendency of censors to silence already marginalized voices, like those of the Rohingya. These technologies try to answer a simple question: What is dangerous content? This isn’t something a dispassionate algorithm can tell us, it’s an inherently subjective question with inherently subjective answers. Take for example, the Counter Extremism Project (“CEP”), a leading censorship advocate that has worked for months to have the major tech firms adopt its platform, publishing op-eds and speaking at conferences. Its eGLYPH platform would automatically flag and remove offensive content. The danger of eGLYPH is that it appears to be almost exclusively directed at Muslim extremists, ignoring white supremacists. At a time when the president draws moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and the social justice advocates who oppose them as he did after Charlottesville, we need to fight all forces of hate. When vendors and activists claim to have the tools to target unwanted speech, we need to ask what biases they are bringing to the task. Facebook’s secrecy only makes the problem worse. We don’t know if Facebook is using eGLYPH, and if it is, we have no idea if it provides oversight to make sure CEP isn’t driving a far-right agenda. As Facebook and other social media companies become indispensable, they pose the sort of First Amendment concerns that once only applied to the government. People, like the Rohingya, who find themselves completely cut off from social media and search engines, are effectively muted. There are solutions. Censorship systems must be simple, open, and even-handed. Facebook must use censorship algorithms that are easy for their users to understand. It shouldn’t take a Ph.D. to know why your post was taken down. The censorship standards must be shared transparently with users, so they know if Facebook goes too far. Censorship must be even-handedly applied to users regardless of race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. Any tool that Facebook employs to fight violent content or radicalization must be applied to all violent ideologies, not just a single group. The cost won’t always be as clear as it is when we silence the Rohingya, but it’s clear that they won’t be the last group to be censored just when they most need the world to listen. Albert Fox Cahn is the Legal Director of the New York Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a leading Muslim civil rights organization. |