Saturday, August 1, 2020
HOW COPS CAN SECRETLY TRACK YOUR PHONE
A guide to stingray surveillance technology, which may have been deployed at recent protests.
Kim Zetter
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/31/protests-surveillance-stingrays-dirtboxes-phone-tracking/
SINCE MAY, AS protesters around the country have marched against police brutality and in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, activists have spotted a recurring presence in the skies: mysterious planes and helicopters hovering overhead, apparently conducting surveillance on protesters. A press release from the Justice Department at the end of May revealed that the Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Marshals Service were asked by the Justice Department to provide unspecified support to law enforcement during protests. A few days later, a memo obtained by BuzzFeed News offered a little more insight on the matter; it revealed that shortly after protests began in various cities, the DEA had sought special authority from the Justice Department to covertly spy on Black Lives Matter protesters on behalf of law enforcement.
Although the press release and memo didn’t say what form the support and surveillance would take, it’s likely that the two agencies were being asked to assist police for a particular reason. Both the DEA and the Marshals possess airplanes outfitted with so-called stingrays or dirtboxes: powerful technologies capable of tracking mobile phones or, depending on how they’re configured, collecting data and communications from mobile phones in bulk.
Stingrays have been used on the ground and in the air by law enforcement for years but are highly controversial because they don’t just collect data from targeted phones; they collect data from any phone in the vicinity of a device. That data can be used to identify people — protesters, for example — and track their movements during and after demonstrations, as well as to identify others who associate with them. They also can inject spying software onto specific phones or direct the browser of a phone to a website where malware can be loaded onto it, though it’s not clear if any U.S. law enforcement agencies have used them for this purpose.
Although law enforcement has been using the technologies since the 1990s, the general public learned about them only in the last decade, and much about their capabilities remains unknown because law enforcement agencies and the companies that make the devices have gone to great lengths to keep details secret. Stingrays are routinely used to target suspects in drug and other criminal investigations, but activists also believe the devices were used during protests against the Dakota Access pipeline, and against Black Lives Matter protesters over the last three months. The Justice Department requires federal agents to obtain a probable cause warrant to use the technology in criminal cases, but there is a carve-out for national security. Given that President Donald Trump has referred to protesters as “terrorists,” and that paramilitary-style officers from the Department of Homeland Security have been deployed to the streets of Portland, Oregon, it’s conceivable that surveillance conducted at recent demonstrations has been deemed a national security matter — raising the possibility that the government may have used stingray technology to collect data on protesters without warrants.
To better understand the kind of surveillance that may be directed at protesters, here’s a breakdown of what we know and still don’t know about stingrays, and why their use is so controversial.
What is a stingray?
Stingray is the generic name for an electronic surveillance tool that simulates a cell phone tower in order to force mobile phones and other devices to connect to it instead of to a legitimate cell tower. In doing so, the phone or other device reveals information about itself and its user to the operator of the stingray. Other common names for the tool are “cell-site simulator” and “IMSI catcher.”
Why is it called a stingray?
The name stingray comes from the brand name of a specific commercial model of IMSI catcher made by the Florida-based Harris Corporation. That company’s StingRay is a briefcase-sized device that can be operated from a vehicle while plugged into the cigarette lighter. Harris also makes products like the Harpoon, a signal booster that makes the StingRay more powerful, and the KingFish, a smaller hand-held device that operates like a stingray and can be used by a law enforcement agent while walking around outside a vehicle. About a dozen other companies make variants of the stingray with different capabilities. The surveillance equipment is pricey and often sold as a package. For example, in documents obtained by Motherboard in 2016, Harris offered a KingFish package that cost $157,300 and a StingRay package that cost $148,000, not including training and maintenance. Documents obtained this year by the American Civil Liberties Union indicate that Harris has upgraded the StingRay to a newer device it calls a Crossbow, though not a lot of information is known about how it works. Separately, a classified catalog of surveillance tools leaked to The Intercept in 2015 describes other similar devices.
How does the stingray work?
Phones periodically and automatically broadcast their presence to the cell tower that is nearest to them, so that the phone carrier’s network can provide them with service in that location. They do this even when the phone is not being used to make or receive a call. When a phone communicates with a cell tower, it reveals the unique ID or IMSI number (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) associated with the SIM card in the phone. The IMSI number identifies that phone and its owner as a paying customer of a cell carrier, and that number can be matched by the carrier to the owner’s name, address, and phone number.
A stingray masquerades as a cell tower in order to get phones to ping it instead of legitimate cell towers, and in doing so, reveal the phones’ IMSI numbers. In the past, it did this by emitting a signal that was stronger than the signal generated by legitimate cell towers around it. The switch to 4G networks was supposed to address this in part by adding an authentication step so that mobile phones could tell if a cell tower is legitimate. But a security researcher named Roger Piqueras Jover found that the authentication on 4G doesn’t occur until after the phone has already revealed its IMSI number, which means that stingrays can still grab this data before the phone determines it’s not communicating with an authentic cell tower and switches to one that is authenticated. That vulnerability still exists in the 5G protocol, says Jover. Though the 5G protocol offers a feature that encrypts the IMSI when it’s disclosed during pre-authentication communication, law enforcement would simply be able to ask phone carriers to decrypt it for them. And a group of researchers from Purdue University and the University of Iowa also found a way to guess an IMSI number without needing to get a carrier to decrypt it.
Because a stingray is not really a tower on the carrier’s network, calls and messages to and from a phone can’t go through while the phone is communicating with the stingray. So after the stingray captures the device’s IMSI number and location, the stingray “releases” the phone so that it can connect to a real cell tower. It can do this by broadcasting a message to that phone that effectively tells the phone to find a different tower.
What can law enforcement do with the IMSI number?
Law enforcement can use a stingray either to identify all of the phones in the vicinity of the stingray or a specific phone, even when the phones are not in use. Law enforcement can then, with a subpoena, ask a phone carrier to provide the customer name and address associated with that number or numbers. They can also obtain a historical log of all of the cell towers a phone has pinged in the recent past to track where it has been, or they can obtain the cell towers it’s pinging in real time to identify the user’s current location. By catching multiple IMSI numbers in the vicinity of a stingray, law enforcement can also potentially uncover associations between people by seeing which phones ping the same cell towers around the same time.
If law enforcement already knows the IMSI number of a specific phone and person they are trying to locate, they can program that IMSI number into the stingray and it will tell them if that phone is nearby. Law enforcement can also home in on the location of a specific phone and its user by moving the stingray around a geographical area and measuring the phone’s signal strength as it connects to the stingray. The Harris StingRay can be operated from a patrol vehicle as it drives around a neighborhood to narrow a suspect’s location to a specific cluster of homes or a building, at which point law enforcement can switch to the hand-held KingFish, which offers even more precision. For example, once law enforcement has narrowed the location of a phone and suspect to an office or apartment complex using the StingRay, they can walk through the complex and hallways using the KingFish to find the specific office or apartment where a mobile phone and its user are located.
Does the device only track mobile phones?
No. In 2008, authorities used a StingRay and a KingFish to locate a suspect who was using an air card: an internet-connectivity device that plugs into a computer and allows the user to get online through a wireless cellular network. The suspect, Daniel Rigmaiden, was an identity thief who was operating from an apartment in San Jose, California. Rigmaiden had used a stolen credit card number and a fake name and address to register his internet account with Verizon. With Verizon’s help, the FBI was able to identify him. They determined the general neighborhood in San Jose where Rigmaiden was using the air card so they could position their stingray in the area and move it around until they found the apartment building from which his signal was coming. They then walked around the apartment complex with a hand-held KingFish or similar device to pinpoint the precise apartment Rigmaiden was using.
What is a dirtbox?
A dirtbox is the common name for specific models of an IMSI catcher that are made by a Boeing subsidiary, Maryland-based Digital Receiver Technology — hence the name “DRT box.” They are reportedly used by the DEA and Marshals Service from airplanes to intercept data from mobile phones. A 2014 Wall Street Journal article revealed that the Marshals Service began using dirtboxes in Cessna airplanes in 2007. An airborne dirtbox has the ability to collect data on many more phones than a ground-based stingray; it can also move more easily and quickly over wide areas. According to the 2006 catalog of surveillance technologies leaked in 2015, models of dirtboxes described in that document can be configured to track up to 10,000 targeted IMSI numbers or phones.
Do stingrays and dirtboxes have other capabilities?
Stingrays and dirtboxes can be configured for use in either active or passive mode. In active mode, these technologies broadcast to devices and communicate with them. Passive mode involves grabbing whatever data and communication is occurring in real time across cellular networks without requiring the phone to communicate directly with the interception device. The data captured can include the IMSI number as well as text messages, email, and voice calls.
If that data or communication is encrypted, then it would be useless to anyone intercepting it if they don’t also have a way to decrypt it. Phones that are using 4G employ strong encryption. But stingrays can force phones to downgrade to 2G, a less secure protocol, and tell the phone to use either no encryption or use a weak encryption that can be cracked. They can do this because even though most people use 4G these days, there are some areas of the world where 2G networks are still common, and therefore all phones have to have the ability to communicate on those networks.
The versions of stingrays used by the military can intercept the contents of mobile communications — text messages, email, and voice calls — and decrypt some types of this mobile communication. The military also uses a jamming or denial-of-service feature that prevents adversaries from detonating bombs with a mobile phone.
In addition to collecting the IMSI number of a device and intercepting communications, military-grade IMSI catchers can also spoof text messages to a phone, according to David Burgess, a telecommunications engineer who used to work with U.S. defense contractors supporting overseas military operations. Burgess says that if the military knows the phone number and IMSI number of a target, it can use an IMSI catcher to send messages to other phones as if they are coming from the target’s phone. They can also use the IMSI catcher for a so-called man in the middle attack so that calls from one target pass through the IMSI catcher to the target phone. In this way, they can record the call in real time and potentially listen to the conversation if it is unencrypted, or if they are able to decrypt it. The military systems can also send a silent SMS message to a phone to alter its settings so that the phone will send text messages through a server the military controls instead of the mobile carrier’s server.
Can the devices be used to infect phones with malware?
Versions of the devices used by the military and intelligence agencies can potentially inject malware into targeted phones, depending on how secure the phone is. They can do this in two ways: They can either redirect the phone’s browser to a malicious web site where malware can be downloaded to the phone if the browser has a software vulnerability the attackers can exploit; or they can inject malware from the stingray directly into the baseband of the phone if the baseband software has a vulnerability. Malware injected into the baseband of a phone is harder to detect. Such malware can be used to turn the phone into a listening device to spy on conversations. Recently, Amnesty International reported on the cases of two Moroccan activists whose phones may have been targeted through such network injection attacks to install spyware made by an Israeli company.
U.S. law enforcement use of stingrays domestically is more curtailed, given that they, unlike the military, need to obtain warrants or court orders to use the devices in federal investigations. But there is little transparency or oversight around how the devices are used by federal agents and local police, so there is still a lot that is unknown: for example, whether they’ve ever been used to record the contents of mobile phone communications or to install malware on phones.
News stories suggest that some models of stingrays used by the Marshals Service can extract text messages, contacts, and photos from phones, though they don’t say how the devices do this. Documents obtained by the ACLU in 2015 also indicate such devices do have the ability to record the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls and the date, time, and duration of the calls, as well as to intercept the content of voice and text communications. But the Justice Department has long asserted publicly that the stingrays it uses domestically do not intercept the content of communications. The Justice Department has stated that the devices “may be capable of intercepting the contents of communications and, therefore, such devices must be configured to disable the interception function, unless interceptions have been authorized by a Title III [wiretapping] order.”
As for jamming communications domestically, Dakota Access pipeline protesters at Standing Rock, North Dakota, in 2016 described planes and helicopters flying overhead that they believed were using technology to jam mobile phones. Protesters described having problems such as phones crashing, livestreams being interrupted, and issues uploading videos and other posts to social media.
Why are stingrays and dirtboxes so controversial?
The devices don’t just pick up data about targeted phones. Law enforcement may be tracking a specific phone of a known suspect, but any phone in the vicinity of the stingray that is using the same cellular network as the targeted phone or device will connect to the stingray. Documents in a 2011 criminal case in Canada showed that devices used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had a range of a third of a mile, and in just three minutes of use, one device had intercepted 136 different phones.
Law enforcement can also use a stingray in a less targeted way to sweep up information about all nearby phones. During the time a phone is connecting to or communicating with a stingray, service is disrupted for those phones until the stingray releases them. The connection should last only as long as it takes for the phone to reveal its IMSI number to the stingray, but it’s not clear what kind of testing and oversight the Justice Department has done to ensure that the devices release phones. Stingrays are supposed to allow 911 calls to pass through to a legitimate cell tower to avoid disrupting emergency services, but other emergency calls a user may try to make while their phone is connected to a stingray will not get through until the stingray releases their phone. It’s also not clear how effective the devices are at letting 911 calls go through. The FBI and DHS have indicated that they haven’t commissioned studies to measure this, but a study conducted by federal police in Canada found that the 911 bypass didn’t always work.
Depending on how many phones are in the vicinity of a stingray, hundreds could connect to the device and potentially have service disrupted.
How long has law enforcement been using stingrays?
The technology is believed to have originated in the military, though it’s not clear when it was first used in combat zones or domestically in the U.S. The earliest public mention of a stingray-like device being used by U.S. law enforcement occurred in 1994, when the FBI used a crude, jury-rigged version of the tool to track former hacker Kevin Mitnick; authorities referred to that device as a Triggerfish. In a case in Utah in 2009, an FBI agent revealed in a court document that cell-site simulators had been in use by law enforcement for more than a decade. He also said they weren’t just used by the FBI but also by the Marshals Service, the Secret Service, and other agencies. Recent documents obtained by the ACLU also indicate that between 2017 and 2019, the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations unit has used stingrays at least 466 times in investigations. BuzzFeed News had previously obtained records showing that from 2013 to 2017, HSI had used the technology 1,885 times.
Aside from the potential for widespread surveillance, are there other problems with the technology?
The other controversy with stingrays involves secrecy and lack of transparency around their use. Law enforcement agencies and the companies that make the devices have prevented the public from obtaining information about their capabilities and from learning how often the technology is deployed in investigations. Agencies sign nondisclosure agreements with the companies, which they use as a shield whenever journalists or others file public records requests to obtain information about the technology. Law enforcement agencies claim criminals could craft anti-surveillance methods to undermine the technology if they knew how it worked. The companies themselves cite trade secrets and proprietary information to prevent the public from obtaining sales literature and manuals about the technology.
For years, law enforcement used the devices without obtaining a court order or warrant. Even when they did seek approval from a court, they often described the technology in misleading terms to make it seem less invasive. They would often refer to stingrays in court documents as a “pen register device,” passive devices that sit on a network and record the numbers dialed from a certain phone number. They withheld the fact that the devices force phones to connect to them, that they force other phones that aren’t the target device to connect to them, and that they can perform more functions than simply grabbing an IMSI number. Most significantly, they withheld the fact that the device emits signals that can track a user and their phone inside a private residence. After the FBI used a stingray to track Rigmaiden (the identity thief in San Jose) in his apartment, Rigmaiden’s lawyers got the Justice Department to acknowledge it qualified as a Fourth Amendment search that would require a warrant.
Law enforcement agents have not only deceived judges, however; they’ve also misled defense attorneys seeking information about how agents tracked their clients. In some court documents, law enforcement officials have indicated that they obtained location information about the defendant from a “confidential source,” when in truth they used a stingray to track them.
To address this deception, the Justice Department in 2015 implemented a new policy requiring all federal agents engaged in criminal investigations to obtain a probable cause search warrant before using a stingray. It also requires agents and prosecutors to tell judges when the warrant they are seeking is for a stingray; and it requires them to limit the use of the stingray’s capabilities to tracking the location of a phone and logging the phone numbers for calls received and made by the phone. They cannot collect the contents of communication, such as text messages and emails. And agents are required to purge the data they collect from non-targeted phones within 24 hours or 30 days, depending on the circumstances.
The problem, however, is that Justice Department policy is not law. And although the policy includes state and local law enforcement agencies when they are working on a case with federal agents and want to use the devices, it does not cover those agencies when they are working on cases alone. To address this loophole, lawmakers would need to pass a federal law banning the use of stingrays without a warrant, but efforts to do so have so far been unsuccessful.
One bigger issue with the Justice Department policy is that, as noted above, it only applies to criminal investigations, not national security ones, and it also includes a carve-out for “exigent circumstances” that are not clearly defined. Federal agents are not required to seek a warrant to use the technology in cases involving such circumstances. Whether the government has used the technology against Black Lives Matter protesters without a warrant is likely something that will remain a secret for some time.
The Unemployment Crisis Is a True National Emergency
The incompetent criminals ruling the U.S. are about to push millions of Americans off a terrifying financial cliff.
Jon Schwarz
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/30/coronavirus-unemployment-crisis-national-emergency/
IN SOME ALTERNATE reality, the government and corporate and union and religious leaders of the United States got together in February and told us: “The novel coronavirus is scary, and we’re all going to have to get creative and work together to crush it. Lots of jobs are going to momentarily vanish. But no one in this country will be scared of going hungry, because no one will. No one’s going to be scared of being thrown out of their home, because that’s not going to happen to anyone. This country has the power to take care of everyone’s basic material needs, and we will.”
Here in this reality, we’re governed by a blend of the criminally incompetent and incompetent criminals. As things stand today, they’re about to push a large fraction of Americans off a terrifying cliff. It’s so mercilessly cruel, economically destructive, and even contrary to their own self-interest, that if we’re going to stop them we probably need to figure out why.
Our rulers did demonstrate a spasm of rationality with the passage of the CARES Act in March. It was partly a cash-grab by big business but did get lots of people a $1,200 check and provided an extra $600 per week in federal unemployment benefits on top of state benefits.
Without these benefits, the 30 million people who lost their jobs in March and April would have already plummeted into the void. And because everyone’s spending is someone else’s income, as they fell they would have grabbed onto tens of millions more and taken them down as well.
And in fact, this downward spiral began to happen in mid-March. As the danger of Covid-19 became clear, consumer spending dropped by an astonishing 30 percent in a matter of days. But as soon as the government cash started flowing, spending began to recover, and it’s now more than 90 percent of normal. In poorer zip codes, it’s returned to almost 100 percent.
This has kept the lives of tens of millions of Americans merely bad, rather than totally impossible. But the supplemental unemployment benefits expire at the end of July. The GOP opening bid is to extend them but to cut the amount from $600 to $200. The reason, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin explained in the Oval Office, is to prevent malingering: “We’re going to make sure that we don’t pay people more money to stay home than go to work.” In addition, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Republican “red line” in negotiations is making it essentially impossible for employees to sue employers on the grounds that their workplace is failing to protect them from Covid-19. Furthermore, under the proposed new rules, employers and even the Trump Justice Department would find it easy to countersue workers for bringing a coronavirus lawsuit.
Rationally, of course, this makes no sense. For most of the unemployed, there aren’t any jobs to go back to, and won’t be until the pandemic is under control. If their unemployment benefits are cut, people without jobs will desperately cut back on spending, leading to more unemployment, which will lead to less spending, and so on. The process will be accelerated as states and cities, which until now have attempted to avoid slashing payrolls in hopes that the federal government would rescue them, finally do so.
This may plausibly lead to basic material deprivation — true hunger and homelessness — on a scale few alive today have ever seen. According to the Census Bureau, the number of America’s 249 million households reporting that they sometimes or often do not have enough to eat has already jumped from 22.5 million earlier this year to 29.3 million in July. With Republicans opposing an expansion of food stamp funding, as well as the renewal of the CARES Act supplemental food program for children, that is likely just the beginning.
Then there’s housing. The CARES Act contained a federal ban on evictions that covered about 30 percent of U.S. rental units. That ban just ended, as have most state-level bans. Forty million people could potentially lose their homes in the next several months. In states like Florida, Texas, and New York, half of the tenants will shortly be unable to make the rent.
This is a gigantic human emergency. Almost every person in the country is viscerally frightened for themselves or their family and friends.
But beyond an emergency, it’s also politically inexplicable. Donald Trump and Republicans in general are presumably aware that there’s an election this November, and that they’ll do better if Americans aren’t dying in the street. Just their crass self-interest should lead them to throw as much money at everyone as fast as possible.
But they’re not doing so. Why not? It’s easy to believe it’s because they’re mustache-twirling villains who consciously enjoy the suffering they’re inflicting upon us. But the reality is different, and in some ways scarier.
The weird fact is that even the worst people in history never ask themselves, “Are we the baddies?” On the contrary, they’re convinced they’re great heroes marching us all to a glorious future. When interrogated by the FBI, Saddam Hussein sincerely referred to himself as “a humanitarian.”
Leaders like this are able to ignore the consequences of their actions because, to a shocking degree, they honestly are not aware of the consequences. In the past, this state of malignant ignorance was much harder to maintain. There were local newspapers that could shove the facts in front of them. There were unions that they had to pay attention to, and respected liberal archbishops who attempted to speak for the voiceless.
All that’s gone now. Today conservative U.S. elites live their mental lives protected by an almost impenetrable carapace of wealth and power. None of the people they meet at fundraisers are about to be thrown into the street, so therefore no one is. There are no stories on Fox News about children experiencing brain damage from malnutrition, thus such children don’t exist.
If anyone knows what to do about this, now’s definitely the time to speak up. U.S. politics have always been a matter of life and death for some Americans. But the waters are rising fast, and a lot more people are about to find out it’s a matter of life and death for them too.
Jon Schwarz
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/30/coronavirus-unemployment-crisis-national-emergency/
IN SOME ALTERNATE reality, the government and corporate and union and religious leaders of the United States got together in February and told us: “The novel coronavirus is scary, and we’re all going to have to get creative and work together to crush it. Lots of jobs are going to momentarily vanish. But no one in this country will be scared of going hungry, because no one will. No one’s going to be scared of being thrown out of their home, because that’s not going to happen to anyone. This country has the power to take care of everyone’s basic material needs, and we will.”
Here in this reality, we’re governed by a blend of the criminally incompetent and incompetent criminals. As things stand today, they’re about to push a large fraction of Americans off a terrifying cliff. It’s so mercilessly cruel, economically destructive, and even contrary to their own self-interest, that if we’re going to stop them we probably need to figure out why.
Our rulers did demonstrate a spasm of rationality with the passage of the CARES Act in March. It was partly a cash-grab by big business but did get lots of people a $1,200 check and provided an extra $600 per week in federal unemployment benefits on top of state benefits.
Without these benefits, the 30 million people who lost their jobs in March and April would have already plummeted into the void. And because everyone’s spending is someone else’s income, as they fell they would have grabbed onto tens of millions more and taken them down as well.
And in fact, this downward spiral began to happen in mid-March. As the danger of Covid-19 became clear, consumer spending dropped by an astonishing 30 percent in a matter of days. But as soon as the government cash started flowing, spending began to recover, and it’s now more than 90 percent of normal. In poorer zip codes, it’s returned to almost 100 percent.
This has kept the lives of tens of millions of Americans merely bad, rather than totally impossible. But the supplemental unemployment benefits expire at the end of July. The GOP opening bid is to extend them but to cut the amount from $600 to $200. The reason, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin explained in the Oval Office, is to prevent malingering: “We’re going to make sure that we don’t pay people more money to stay home than go to work.” In addition, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Republican “red line” in negotiations is making it essentially impossible for employees to sue employers on the grounds that their workplace is failing to protect them from Covid-19. Furthermore, under the proposed new rules, employers and even the Trump Justice Department would find it easy to countersue workers for bringing a coronavirus lawsuit.
Rationally, of course, this makes no sense. For most of the unemployed, there aren’t any jobs to go back to, and won’t be until the pandemic is under control. If their unemployment benefits are cut, people without jobs will desperately cut back on spending, leading to more unemployment, which will lead to less spending, and so on. The process will be accelerated as states and cities, which until now have attempted to avoid slashing payrolls in hopes that the federal government would rescue them, finally do so.
This may plausibly lead to basic material deprivation — true hunger and homelessness — on a scale few alive today have ever seen. According to the Census Bureau, the number of America’s 249 million households reporting that they sometimes or often do not have enough to eat has already jumped from 22.5 million earlier this year to 29.3 million in July. With Republicans opposing an expansion of food stamp funding, as well as the renewal of the CARES Act supplemental food program for children, that is likely just the beginning.
Then there’s housing. The CARES Act contained a federal ban on evictions that covered about 30 percent of U.S. rental units. That ban just ended, as have most state-level bans. Forty million people could potentially lose their homes in the next several months. In states like Florida, Texas, and New York, half of the tenants will shortly be unable to make the rent.
This is a gigantic human emergency. Almost every person in the country is viscerally frightened for themselves or their family and friends.
But beyond an emergency, it’s also politically inexplicable. Donald Trump and Republicans in general are presumably aware that there’s an election this November, and that they’ll do better if Americans aren’t dying in the street. Just their crass self-interest should lead them to throw as much money at everyone as fast as possible.
But they’re not doing so. Why not? It’s easy to believe it’s because they’re mustache-twirling villains who consciously enjoy the suffering they’re inflicting upon us. But the reality is different, and in some ways scarier.
The weird fact is that even the worst people in history never ask themselves, “Are we the baddies?” On the contrary, they’re convinced they’re great heroes marching us all to a glorious future. When interrogated by the FBI, Saddam Hussein sincerely referred to himself as “a humanitarian.”
Leaders like this are able to ignore the consequences of their actions because, to a shocking degree, they honestly are not aware of the consequences. In the past, this state of malignant ignorance was much harder to maintain. There were local newspapers that could shove the facts in front of them. There were unions that they had to pay attention to, and respected liberal archbishops who attempted to speak for the voiceless.
All that’s gone now. Today conservative U.S. elites live their mental lives protected by an almost impenetrable carapace of wealth and power. None of the people they meet at fundraisers are about to be thrown into the street, so therefore no one is. There are no stories on Fox News about children experiencing brain damage from malnutrition, thus such children don’t exist.
If anyone knows what to do about this, now’s definitely the time to speak up. U.S. politics have always been a matter of life and death for some Americans. But the waters are rising fast, and a lot more people are about to find out it’s a matter of life and death for them too.
PROGRESSIVE J.D. SCHOLTEN REJECTS DCCC HELP IN CLOSE IOWA RACE
Scholten said the House Democrats’ campaign arm “begged” him to run against Steve King in 2020. When King lost his primary, the DCCC lost interest.
Aída Chávez
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/29/progressive-scholten-feenstra-dccc-iowa/
J.D. SCHOLTEN, the progressive populist who nearly defeated Steve King in Iowa’s deep-red 4th Congressional District in 2018, wants the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to know that his campaign doesn’t want or need their help. The falling out comes as the House Democrats’ campaign arm, which encouraged him to run against King a second time, has de-prioritized the race; King, a white supremacist, lost his primary, and the district was downgraded from “tilt Republican” to “solid Republican.” But it’s still competitive: Scholten is currently leading his new Republican rival in fundraising by hundreds of thousands of dollars, and his campaign’s internal polling shows the two in a statistical dead heat.
Now, Scholten is rejecting the possibility of support and funds from the House Democrats’ campaign arm, saying he is determined to run the campaign his way. The DCCC, for its part, told Scholten he must meet its requirements, which would involve changing his campaign strategy, to receive funding — a very different message than in 2019 when DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos told Scholten it would go “all in” on his race against King.
“We have an authentic campaign that reflects who I am and my vision for this district,” Scholten said in a statement announcing the decision. “We won’t be beholden to special interests or the DCCC; instead, we’re reaching out to folks across the political spectrum to earn votes.”
Scholten is especially frustrated by the DCCC’s approach to supporting moderate candidates who focus on traditional fundraising from big-dollar donors. “The DCCC-type of campaign where you sit at home and fundraise all day doesn’t win respect, trust, or elections in these parts and wouldn’t be a good start to addressing the serious challenges facing rural America,” Scholten wrote.
In 2018, as a first-time candidate, Scholten came within 3 percentage points of beating King, building a remarkable base of grassroots support. He outperformed nearly 40 percent of the candidates in the DCCC’s “Red-to-Blue” program, which targets seats that have a promising chance to flip. But that election cycle, he said, the DCCC didn’t return his calls.
Over a year ago, Bustos reached out and “begged” him to run against King a second time, Scholten recalled, promising the DCCC would make it a top five race. He openly weighed a run for the Senate seat currently held by Joni Ernst, at one point, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer discouraged him from jumping in the race to try to clear the field for Theresa Greenfield, who’s now the Democratic nominee. That’s when Bustos said the House Democrats’ campaign arm would go “all in” on his race if he challenged King again.
Scholten went on to win the Democratic nomination in June, following an uncontested primary. He was preparing for a rematch against King — a white nationalist who had been censured by his colleagues in the House and stripped of his committee assignments — until the incumbent lawmaker lost the Republican primary to state Sen. Randy Feenstra, who was backed by President Donald Trump.
Last week, Scholten reached out to Bustos to check in and see where the DCCC was at, and what she meant by her promise to go “all in” on his bid. During their phone call, Scholten laid out everything they had accomplished last cycle and made his case for why the race, despite King’s loss, could present a huge opportunity. “And it just got to the point where they’re trying to dangle carrots in front of us and I was like, you know what, I’m not having it,” he said. “They wanna be in all our meetings, they want us to use their consultants and stuff like that. And I don’t feel comfortable doing that at this time.”
After discussing with his team, Scholten said, he decided, “We don’t need them and what we want is to run the campaign similar to last time and that’s what’s going to win this race.” Completely refusing the DCCC’s help also means the campaign will have to provide its own field program and do its own mailing, which Red to Blue candidates are armed with additional “organizational and fundraising support.” “That’s part of it: We didn’t feel that what they do provides enough value for what we’re trying to do,” he said.
“JD Scholten is a strong candidate working to earn voters’ trust in rural Iowa,” Cole Leiter, a DCCC spokesperson, said in a statement. “We have built a big battlefield and every candidate is going to make their own decisions about how to run their race. We wish him well.”
Though King’s defeat changed the dynamics of the race, Scholten’s campaign believes that the issues, namely Medicare for All and his vow to take on the corporate interests exploiting the second largest agricultural district in the country, will help flip the district come November. Scholten’s platform stands in stark contrast to the more moderate talking points and messaging the party establishment pushes on Democratic candidates running in red districts.
In 2018, for example, the DCCC commissioned a survey and analysis to help develop its messaging on health care. The messaging handouts, The Intercept reported at the time, “made clear where the party wants its candidates to stand when it comes to health care reform: preferably nowhere, but certainly not with single-payer advocates.” Party elites also end up influencing campaign strategy, Scholten noted. In a few weeks, his campaign will launch a tour that will go through all 375 towns in the district (while adhering to health and safety guidelines.)
“They would not agree that I should go to all 375 towns even though that’s how we earn votes,” he told The Intercept. “They want me to stay at home and just fundraise, be on the phone from the minute I wake up to the minute I go to bed.”
The Scholten campaign brought in a haul of nearly $620,000 in the second quarter of the fundraising year, making it the largest ever in a second quarter for any Democrat who has run for the seat. About 96 percent of the campaign’s contributions last quarter were under $200, thanks to its online small donor base.
“The way the DCCC’s system is, candidates like me, they don’t really care much about,” he said. “If I could self fund, they’d be all over me. I mean, the organizing and just the grassroots organization, we created something that’s so authentic and so organic that I don’t think they know how to deal with something like that. We need more working-class people in D.C., and their system is not made for that.”
Aída Chávez
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/29/progressive-scholten-feenstra-dccc-iowa/
J.D. SCHOLTEN, the progressive populist who nearly defeated Steve King in Iowa’s deep-red 4th Congressional District in 2018, wants the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to know that his campaign doesn’t want or need their help. The falling out comes as the House Democrats’ campaign arm, which encouraged him to run against King a second time, has de-prioritized the race; King, a white supremacist, lost his primary, and the district was downgraded from “tilt Republican” to “solid Republican.” But it’s still competitive: Scholten is currently leading his new Republican rival in fundraising by hundreds of thousands of dollars, and his campaign’s internal polling shows the two in a statistical dead heat.
Now, Scholten is rejecting the possibility of support and funds from the House Democrats’ campaign arm, saying he is determined to run the campaign his way. The DCCC, for its part, told Scholten he must meet its requirements, which would involve changing his campaign strategy, to receive funding — a very different message than in 2019 when DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos told Scholten it would go “all in” on his race against King.
“We have an authentic campaign that reflects who I am and my vision for this district,” Scholten said in a statement announcing the decision. “We won’t be beholden to special interests or the DCCC; instead, we’re reaching out to folks across the political spectrum to earn votes.”
Scholten is especially frustrated by the DCCC’s approach to supporting moderate candidates who focus on traditional fundraising from big-dollar donors. “The DCCC-type of campaign where you sit at home and fundraise all day doesn’t win respect, trust, or elections in these parts and wouldn’t be a good start to addressing the serious challenges facing rural America,” Scholten wrote.
In 2018, as a first-time candidate, Scholten came within 3 percentage points of beating King, building a remarkable base of grassroots support. He outperformed nearly 40 percent of the candidates in the DCCC’s “Red-to-Blue” program, which targets seats that have a promising chance to flip. But that election cycle, he said, the DCCC didn’t return his calls.
Over a year ago, Bustos reached out and “begged” him to run against King a second time, Scholten recalled, promising the DCCC would make it a top five race. He openly weighed a run for the Senate seat currently held by Joni Ernst, at one point, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer discouraged him from jumping in the race to try to clear the field for Theresa Greenfield, who’s now the Democratic nominee. That’s when Bustos said the House Democrats’ campaign arm would go “all in” on his race if he challenged King again.
Scholten went on to win the Democratic nomination in June, following an uncontested primary. He was preparing for a rematch against King — a white nationalist who had been censured by his colleagues in the House and stripped of his committee assignments — until the incumbent lawmaker lost the Republican primary to state Sen. Randy Feenstra, who was backed by President Donald Trump.
Last week, Scholten reached out to Bustos to check in and see where the DCCC was at, and what she meant by her promise to go “all in” on his bid. During their phone call, Scholten laid out everything they had accomplished last cycle and made his case for why the race, despite King’s loss, could present a huge opportunity. “And it just got to the point where they’re trying to dangle carrots in front of us and I was like, you know what, I’m not having it,” he said. “They wanna be in all our meetings, they want us to use their consultants and stuff like that. And I don’t feel comfortable doing that at this time.”
After discussing with his team, Scholten said, he decided, “We don’t need them and what we want is to run the campaign similar to last time and that’s what’s going to win this race.” Completely refusing the DCCC’s help also means the campaign will have to provide its own field program and do its own mailing, which Red to Blue candidates are armed with additional “organizational and fundraising support.” “That’s part of it: We didn’t feel that what they do provides enough value for what we’re trying to do,” he said.
“JD Scholten is a strong candidate working to earn voters’ trust in rural Iowa,” Cole Leiter, a DCCC spokesperson, said in a statement. “We have built a big battlefield and every candidate is going to make their own decisions about how to run their race. We wish him well.”
Though King’s defeat changed the dynamics of the race, Scholten’s campaign believes that the issues, namely Medicare for All and his vow to take on the corporate interests exploiting the second largest agricultural district in the country, will help flip the district come November. Scholten’s platform stands in stark contrast to the more moderate talking points and messaging the party establishment pushes on Democratic candidates running in red districts.
In 2018, for example, the DCCC commissioned a survey and analysis to help develop its messaging on health care. The messaging handouts, The Intercept reported at the time, “made clear where the party wants its candidates to stand when it comes to health care reform: preferably nowhere, but certainly not with single-payer advocates.” Party elites also end up influencing campaign strategy, Scholten noted. In a few weeks, his campaign will launch a tour that will go through all 375 towns in the district (while adhering to health and safety guidelines.)
“They would not agree that I should go to all 375 towns even though that’s how we earn votes,” he told The Intercept. “They want me to stay at home and just fundraise, be on the phone from the minute I wake up to the minute I go to bed.”
The Scholten campaign brought in a haul of nearly $620,000 in the second quarter of the fundraising year, making it the largest ever in a second quarter for any Democrat who has run for the seat. About 96 percent of the campaign’s contributions last quarter were under $200, thanks to its online small donor base.
“The way the DCCC’s system is, candidates like me, they don’t really care much about,” he said. “If I could self fund, they’d be all over me. I mean, the organizing and just the grassroots organization, we created something that’s so authentic and so organic that I don’t think they know how to deal with something like that. We need more working-class people in D.C., and their system is not made for that.”
Lawmakers Warn 'Onerous' New USPS Loan Terms Imposed by Mnuchin 'Could Accelerate Demise of Postal Service'
"Mnuchin and the leadership of the U.S. Postal Service appear to be exploiting this public health pandemic to hold the Postal Service to unreasonable loan terms without even consulting Congress."
by
Jake Johnson, staff writer
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/30/lawmakers-warn-onerous-new-usps-loan-terms-imposed-mnuchin-could-accelerate-demise
Leading congressional Democrats are warning that an emergency loan agreement announced Wednesday by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and new Postmaster General Louis DeJoy—a major donor to President Donald Trump and the GOP—could "accelerate the demise of the Postal Service" by giving the administration unprecedented access to the popular agency's internal operations.
"Secretary Mnuchin and the leadership of the U.S. Postal Service appear to be exploiting this public health pandemic to hold the Postal Service to unreasonable loan terms without even consulting Congress," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) in a joint statement Wednesday evening.
The agreement also requires USPS to give the Treasury Department access to proprietary information about the Postal Service's private-sector shipping contracts and bars the agency from accessing the emergency funds if its "cash balance exceeds $8 billion."According to a loan term sheet (pdf) made public by the lawmakers, the USPS will gain access to $10 billion in emergency funding approved by Congress back in March provided that the agency adheres to a number of requirements, including providing the Trump administration with "historical and protected business, financial, operational, contractual, and planning data that Treasury may determine is necessary to evaluate USPS's current and future financial condition."
In a statement, Mnuchin hailed the deal as a step in the direction of "the president's goal of establishing a sustainable business model under which USPS can continue to provide necessary mail service for all Americans, without shifting costs to taxpayers." In April, Trump called the USPS a "joke" and demanded that it dramatically hike package prices amid the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused a sharp decline in mail volume.
Maloney, Peters, Connolly, and Carper said Wednesday that the terms agreed upon by Mnuchin and DeJoy—who took over as head of the USPS just last month—"would inappropriately insert the Treasury into the internal operations of the Postal Service."
"These terms would severely limit the Postal Service's access to capital and could accelerate the demise of the Postal Service that all Americans, especially seniors, small businesses, veterans, and those living in rural communities, rely upon every day, especially during the pandemic," the lawmakers said. "We will not stop fighting to protect this critical service that communities depend on and to ensure that every American can safely participate in the November elections."
The new loan agreement comes as DeJoy continues to rush ahead with sweeping operational changes at the USPS that postal workers believe are part of a deliberate effort to sabotage the beloved government institution and put it on a path toward privatization—a longtime goal of the conservative movement.
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, USPS leadership launched a pilot program that could result in significant delays in mail delivery by barring postal workers from sorting packages during their morning operations. In Portland, Maine, letter carriers allege they are being instructed to delay first-class parcels in order to prioritize Amazon packages.
"Undermining and degrading the Postal Service helps frustrate the customer, which sets the stage to privatizing it," Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union, told The Intercept. "The Trump administration is on record for raising prices, reducing service, and reducing workers' rights and benefits."
Motherboard reported Monday that "post offices around the country are slashing their hours—including during the busiest times of day—with little notice as yet another abrupt cost-saving measure" implemented by DeJoy, previously the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a private firm with a history of union-busting activity.
"In addition to West Virginia and New Jersey, post offices in Berkeley, California; Petersburg, Alaska, Youngstown, Ohio, and Knoxville, Tennessee have announced similar plans to reduce hours," Motherboard reported. "All of the changes Motherboard has reviewed were announced only by signs hanging on the post office doors."
In addition to harming the credibility of the USPS—which ranks as the most popular government agency in the United States—DeJoy's cost-cutting measures also threaten to disrupt upcoming elections as an record number of Americans turn to vote-by-mail as the safest way to cast their ballots amid the pandemic.
"The Trump administration's attempts to politicize, privatize, and gut USPS in the middle of a pandemic and unprecedented vote-by-mail is one of the biggest scandals in American politics right now," Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman tweeted Wednesday.
In an op-ed for NJ.com this week, Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) warned that "the electoral implications for the destruction of the Postal Service are momentous."
"If it is forced to curtail its service," Pascrell wrote, "our ability to hold a national election could be obliterated."
'Racist, Classist Garbage': Trump Brags to Suburbia About His Repeal of Housing Desegregation Rule
"This is blatant racism from the President of the United States," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "And it's disgusting."
by
Jake Johnson, staff writer
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/29/racist-classist-garbage-trump-brags-suburbia-about-his-repeal-housing-desegregation
In a pair of tweets one advocacy group denounced as "racist, classist garbage," President Donald Trump on Wednesday boasted that he is working to prevent construction of low-income housing in the suburbs by repealing an Obama-era rule aimed at combating persistent racial segregation in those communities.
"I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low-income housing built in your neighborhood," Trump tweeted. "Your housing prices will go up based on the market, and crime will go down. I have rescinded the Obama-Biden AFFH Rule. Enjoy!"
In 2018, Trump's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson suspended the Obama-era rule. Last Thursday, HUD announced it is replacing the AFFH with a new regulatory framework (pdf) that would allow localities to monitor their own compliance with fair housing laws. The new rules are set to take effect next month.Trump was referring to the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, an addition to the 1968 Fair Housing Act that required cities and towns receiving federal funding to document and develop plans to redress racial housing segregation.
"Words can't quite capture how outrageous and racist this is," Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in response to the president's tweets Wednesday. "Trump and Ben Carson have worked hand in glove to obstruct and destroy decades of work to promote fair housing in our country."
"On this latest move," Clarke added, "we will see the administration in court."
With the 2020 presidential election a mere three months away, critics like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) characterized Trump's tweets as the president's most recent racist dog whistle aimed at white suburban voters he believes would be comforted by such messaging.
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll last month showed Trump trailing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden 35% to 60% among suburban voters.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that "Trump and his campaign team, already concerned about his weakness in battleground states, have become increasingly alarmed by internal polling showing a softening of support among suburban voters, especially women without college degrees."
"The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article," Trump tweeted last week, linking to a New York Post column by right-wing commentator Betsy McCaughey. "Biden will destroy your neighborhood and your American Dream. I will preserve it, and make it even better!"
Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a statement last week that Trump's rescission of the AFFH rule is an "abhorrent" attempt to "use a critical fair housing tool for election year race-baiting, particularly during a time of reckoning for racial injustices."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)