Sep 13

Today’s News 13th September 2018

  • 'Catastrophic': EU Passes Copyright Directive Including Internet 'Link Tax' and 'Upload Filter'

    Submitted by Planet Free Will

    The European Parliment has passed a controversial copyright directive that contains provisions which force tech giants to install content filters and sets in place a potential tax on hyperlinking.

    The bill was passed in a final vote of 438 – 226 and will need to be implemented by individual EU member states.

    Critics of the directive have been laser-focused on two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13, which they have dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter.”

    The most important parts of this are Articles 11 and 13. Article 11 is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories, allowing them to demand paid licenses. Article 13 requires certain platforms like YouTube and Facebook stop users sharing unlicensed copyrighted material.

    Critics of the Copyright Directive say these provisions are disastrous. In the case of Article 11, they note that attempts to “tax” platforms like Google News for sharing articles have repeatedly failed, and that the system would be ripe to abuse by copyright trolls.

    Article 13, they say, is even worse. The legislation requires that platforms proactively work with rightsholders to stop users uploading copyrighted content. The only way to do so would be to scan all data being uploaded to sites like YouTube and Facebook. This would create an incredible burden for small platforms, and could be used as a mechanism for widespread censorship. This is why figures like Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee came out so strongly against the directive. – The Verge

    Member of the European Parliament, Axel Voss, who played a lead roll in pushing for both articles 11 and 13, thanked his fellow MEPs “for the job we have done together” in the wake of the vote.

    “This is a good sign for the creative industries in Europe,” Voss said.

    Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake was not nearly as excited as Voss after the vote. In a statement, the Dutchman said: “The Parliament squandered the opportunity to get the copyright reform on the right track. This is a disastrous result for the protection of our fundamental rights, ordinary internet users and Europe´s future in the field of artificial intelligence. We have set a step backwards instead of creating a true copyright reform that is fit for the 21st century.”

    Opponents of the directive have been using the hashtag #SaveYourInternet on social media.

    Some are pointing out that the new copyright push could potentially block or ban memes from being shared on the European internet.

    Julia Reda, a German Pirate Party lawmaker, reacted to the result of the vote by saying it was “catastrophic” for sports fans. 

    A summary of the directive describes the internet as the main marketplace for distribution and access to copyright-protected content. Those who support further EU intervention in copyright law say that the difficulty for content creators to enforce their rights to the work they post online “could put at risk the development of European creativity and production of creative content.”

    According to a letter signed by world-renowned computer scientist Tim Berners, and internet pioneer Vint Cerf, articles 11 and 13 will not only affect the professional content creator but also the average internet user:

    In particular, far from only affecting large American Internet platforms (who can well afford the costs of compliance), the burden of Article 13 will fall most heavily on their competitors, including European startups and SMEs. The cost of putting in place the necessary automatic filtering technologies will be expensive and burdensome, and yet those technologies have still not developed to a point where their reliability can be guaranteed. Indeed, if Article 13 had been in place when Internet’s core protocols and applications were developed, it is unlikely that it would exist today as we know it.

    The impact of Article 13 would also fall heavily on ordinary users of Internet platforms—not only those who upload music or video (frequently in reliance upon copyright limitations and exceptions, that Article 13 ignores), but even those who contribute photos, text, or computer code to open collaboration platforms such as Wikipedia and GitHub.

    While it will be interesting to see how EU member states take to the copyright overhaul, this latest piece of legislation isn’t the only move by the superstar which should have those suspicious of censorship worried

    And just as a side note, it appears Twitter doesn’t want its users to know about Article 13.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    ******

    As PFW reported on September 5, the European Union is in the final stages of crafting legislation that will force big tech and internet companies to censor “extremist” content and cooperate with law enforcement

    The bill is expected to be released by the end of the month and will absolutely require companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter to swiftly remove any content considered terroristic from their platforms.

    EU Commissioner in charge of Justice, Consumers and gender equality, Věra Jourová , speaks at a news conference on a second monitoring of the illegal online hate speech code of conduct in Brussels, Belgium, 1 June 2017. [Olivier Hoslet/EPA]

    In March, the European Commission told such companies that they had three months to show they were removing “extremist” content more rapidly or face legislation forcing them to do so.

    EU recommendations were sent out at the time regarding the speedy removal of all content including terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products, and copyright infringement.

    The threat eventually led to the creation of an online “code of conduct” aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia across Europe, an effort both the EU and big tech collaborated on.

    According to European Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova, that an existing code of conduct to counter hate speech could remain voluntary.

    “(But on) terrorist content, we came to the conclusion that it is too serious a threat and risk for European people that we should have absolute certainty that all the platforms and all the IT providers will delete the terrorist content and will cooperate with law enforcement bodies,” Jourova said on Wednesday.

    “Yes, this is in the final stage,” she added, addressing the new bill.

    While details of the new legislation remain hidden, the Financial Times in August learned that law enforcement will be in charge of flagging content for censorship.

    EU security commissioner Julian King also had mentioned last month that the bill will “likely” turn the agreed upon “code of conduct” into mandatory law, placing the prediction by Jourova that it will remain voluntary on shakey grounds.

    The big tech – EU code of conduct establishes “public commitments” for tech companies, including the requirement to review the “majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech” in less than 24 hours. It was also crafted to make it easier for law enforcement to notify firms directly of any unwanted content.

    Within the code is a narrow explanation of “hate speech,” being defined as “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

    The nature of enforcing censorship based on a narrow and subjective term such as “hate speech” is likely to keep suspicions high that these types of decision aren’t about creating a safer world, but rather a world in which superstates like the EU control the content people see online for political purposes.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • White House Threatens Military Response Against Iran-Backed Militias in Iraq

    Iraq may once again, for the first time in nearly a decade, become a theater of US-Iran confrontation according to a White House statement published Tuesday evening.

    “The United States will hold the regime in Tehran accountable for any attack that results in injury to our personnel or damage to United States government facilities,” press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a written statement posted to WhiteHouse.gov. “America will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives.”

    Image source: Long War Journal

    The threat of military force comes after the American embassy in Baghdad’s ‘green zone’ came under a brazen overnight mortar attack last Thursday, which left no one injured but started a blaze near the sprawling embassy’s gate.

    Up to four mortars were fired in what officials confirmed was a targeted assault American diplomatic soil. Defense analysts and officials were quick to blame Iran-backed militias in the area, which had previously in the week vowed in a joint statement to expel all “foreign occupying forces” from the country. 

    And days later multiple rockets were fired at the Basra airport, which is also site of the United States consulate for the area. Though denying it had a role in events in Basra or Baghdad, Tehran’s leaders did admit to a major missile attack on the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Northern Iraqi Kurdistan, which resulted in up to a dozen killed and scores wounded. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The White House statement, which condemns “life threatening attacks” against “the United States consulate in Basra and against the American embassy compound in Baghdad” also follows two weeks of heightened sectarian tensions across various parts of the country, but especially the southern Sunni-majority city of Basra, where the Iranian consulate was burned to the ground after it was stormed by a mob late last week. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The statement puts Iran on notice and pledges that it will be held responsible for such incidents: “Iran did not act to stop these attacks by its proxies in Iraq, which it has supported with funding, training, and weapons,” reads the press release. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    US officials have yet to reveal any evidence that Iran was directly behind either the embassy or Basra consulate attacks, but days prior ten pro-Iran Shia militias in the country published a statement vowing to expel foreign troops and advisers by force if they didn’t immediately leave Iraq. 

    “We will deal with them [foreign troops in Iraq] as occupying forces, and we will use our legitimate rights by employing all possible means to force them out of the country,” the Iraqi factions warned, adding that foreign troops were “in their sights”.

    The statement first published last Tuesday further declared there was an “Anglo-American-led dirty and dangerous conspiracy to impose a devilish coalition” on the people of Iraq which seeks to weaken the government and make Baghdad a puppet of Brett McGurk, who is the White House appointed special envoy for the anti-ISIL coalition. 

    The Shia militias later blamed Washington for being behind the mass anti-Iran and anti-Iraqi government protests that engulfed Basra and resulted in the Iranian consulate being burned down along with dozens of Shia militia headquarters and other facilities across the city. 

    “The American Embassy is directing the situation in Basra,” charged Abu Medhi al-Mohandis in public statements. Mohandis is a well-known Shiite militia commander who U.S. officials accuse of long being on Iran’s payroll. 

    All of this also comes after allegations that Iran has transferred ballistic missiles to its proxy forces in Iraq, which are said to be easily capable of hitting Tel Aviv and Riyadh, according to Western and Iraqi intelligence sources cited in a recent Reuters report. 

    Given current broader tensions in the region and charges of “Iranian expansion” it will be interesting to see if the US again ramps up operations in Iraq. Should the proxy war waging across the border in Syria actually come to an end, it may very well be that Iraq again becomes the new ground zero for the West’s anti-Iran proxy war.  

  • Turkey's Latest Power Grab: A Naval Base In Cyprus?

    Authored by Debalina Ghoshal via The Gatestone Institute,

    • The possibility of a Turkish naval base on Cyprus does not bode well for the chances of a Cyprus reunification deal, particularly after the breakdown of the July 2017 peace talks, which were suspended when “Turkey had refused to relinquish its intervention rights on Cyprus or the presence of troops on the island.”

    • Turkey has 30,000 soldiers stationed on Cyprus, the northern part of which it has illegally occupied since 1974.

    • “If Greek-Turkish tensions escalate, the possibility of another ill-timed military provocation could escalate with them… Moreover, such a conflict might open up an even greater opportunity for Russian interference.” – Lawrence A. Franklin.

    Turkey’s Naval Forces Command has “submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that Turkey should establish a naval base in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” according to Turkey’s strongly pro-Erdogan daily, Yeni Safak, which recently endorsed the proposal for the base in an article entitled, “Why Turkey should establish a naval base in Northern Cyprus.”

    “The base will enable the protection of Northern Cyprus’ sovereignty as well as facilitate and fortify Turkey’s rights and interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, preventing the occupation of sea energy fields, and strengthening Turkey’s hand in the Cyprus peace process talks.”

    Having a naval base in northern Cyprus would also strengthen the self-proclaimed “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” which is recognized only by Turkey. Cyprus is strategically important: a naval base there would give Turkey easier access to the Eastern Mediterranean’s international trade routes and greater control over the vast undersea energy resources around Cyprus. In the past, Turkey has blocked foreign vessels from drilling for these resources; in June, Turkey began its own exploration of the island’s waters for gas and oil.

    Turkey’s Naval Forces Command has “submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that Turkey should establish a naval base in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.” Pictured: The Turkish Navy frigate TCG Oruçreis. (Image source: CC-BY-SA-3.0/Brian Burnell via Wikimedia Commons)

    This is not the first time that Turkey has set its sights on the area’s resources. In 2014, Ankara dispatched surveillance vessels and warships to Cyprus’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to search for hydrocarbons. This incident took place just before the leaders of Greece, Cyprus and Egypt deepened their an energy-cooperation, “freezing Turkey out.” As soon as the accord was signed, Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades blasted “Turkey’s provocative actions,” saying that they “do not just compromise the peace talks [between Greek and Turkish Cypriots]… [but] also affect security in the eastern Mediterranean region.”

    At the time, UN-brokered reunification negotiations, which had been renewed after a long hiatus, ended unsuccessfully yet again, as a result of Turkey’s search for hydrocarbons in the EEZ. According to a November 2014 report in the Guardian:

    “Turkey’s decision to dispatch a research vessel into disputed waters last month not only resulted in talks being broken off but has exacerbated the row over drilling rights.”

    The possibility of a Turkish naval base does not bode well for the chances of a Cyprus reunification deal, particularly after the breakdown of the July 2017 peace talks between Turkish-Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci and Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades. The talks were suspended when “Turkey had refused to relinquish its intervention rights on Cyprus or the presence of troops on the island.” Turkey has 30,000 soldiers stationed on Cyprus, the northern part of which it has illegally occupied since 1974.

    Another factor that may be contributing to the Turkish Navy’s desire for a base in Cyprus is Israel. Aside from Ankara’s extremely rocky relations with Jerusalem, Israel and Cyprus have been working to forge an agreement to join their electricity grids and construct a pipeline to link their gas fields to mainland Europe. Although they are in a dispute over development rights of one of these gas fields, Aphrodite, they are invested in reaching a solution that will not damage their increasingly friendly relations.

    Erdogan’s considerations should concern NATO, of which Turkey, surprisingly, is still a member, and the rest of the West. As Lawrence A. Franklin recently wrote for Gatestone:

    “If Greek-Turkish tensions escalate, the possibility of another ill-timed military provocation could escalate with them. The ability of NATO to respond to other conflicts in the area could be affected, as well as NATO air and naval assets based in both countries. Moreover, such a conflict might open up an even greater opportunity for Russian interference.”

  • Putin and Xi Jinping Affirm Both "Oppose Unilateralism And Trade Protectionism" In Summit

    Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on the Sino-Russian border Tuesday. Simultaneously Russia and China kicked off unprecedented joint military exercises as part of Russia’s annual Vostok war games, which will run for a week and includes thousands of Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops, and some 300,000 Russian personnel. 

    President Putin has of late sought closer relations with China, which Russia shares a massive 4,200km border with, amidst both countries experiencing deep tensions with the West, including US sanctions against Moscow and a growing trade war between China and Washington.

    It’s the third time this year the two leaders have met and the fact that it was planned at the inauguration of Vostok 2018 no doubt sent a strong signal to Washington that the two countries’ usually chilly relations are warming fast in the face of a common increased threat from the West. 

    According to China’s state broadcaster CCTV, Xi affirmed to Putin that, “Both nations have to oppose unilateralism and trade protectionism, and build a new type of international relations and shared human destiny.”

    The two leaders toast improved relations at the Eastern Economic Forum on Tuesday. 

    Putin in return reportedly pledged mutual good faith commitment to boosting ties, noting the wide range of mutual national interests: “We have a relationship of trust in the sphere of politics, security and defense,” he said. “We know that you [Xi] personally pay great attention to the development of Russian-Chinese relations.”

    The two also discussed areas of potential greater cooperation in science and technology, counterterrorism, as well as China’s ambitious “Belt and Road Initiative”. The two acknowledged their prior one-on-one summits as “fruitful” — the last being their July Johannesburg meeting, and before that a June meeting in Beijing.  

    And significantly, simultaneous to the Putin-Xi meeting, The Hindu reports, it’s more than the Vostok games where on the ground improvement of ties are already happening: 

    On Tuesday, Russia-China Investment Fund (RCIF) — a joint undertaking of the state-owned China Investment Corporation and Russian sovereign wealth fund — announced that a group of of Russian and Chinese businesses are considering 73 joint investment projects, with a cumulative value of more than $100 billion. CNBC reported that cooperation between China and Russia is an issue of global importance as both nations try to achieve economic stability despite the pain of U.S. penalties — sanctions against Russia and an escalating tariff war against China.

    Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting China’s ambassador to Russia, Li Hui, described Sino-Russian relations as being “at their best in history” in statements made on Sunday. President Xi’s attendance at the annual economic forum constitutes the first ever by a Chinese leader.

    Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping make pancakes during a visit to the Far East Street exhibition on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia. Image source: Reuters

    And concerning China’s sending some 3,200 PLA elite forces troops, along with 30 fix-wing aircraft and helicopters to deploy during the exercise, Carnegie Moscow Center analyst, Alexander Gubuev, summarized why the West will closely monitor the games with increased alarm, per a Financial Times report:

    “This is pretty huge. These major exercises are designed to simulate responses to aggression from external enemies. For decades, China has been considered one of those potential threats. Thus, to invite them to participate suggests that now they are seen as allies against other aggressors.”

    The exercises, which are annual and held in different regions which Moscow considers among four strategic military sectors, are designed to simulate an attack on a foreign power. 

    “Both Beijing and Moscow are looking to demonstrate that trade wars and sanctions will only push them to develop new alliances,” comments senior analyst Florence Cahill for a risk consultancy group as cited in FT. And explained further, “As long as their prevailing worldview is shaped by an animus towards a US-led international order, co-operation on all levels between Moscow and Beijing will likely be more pronounced than competition between them.”

    China’s defense ministry put out a statement Tuesday saying that the country’s participation in Vostok 2018 would enhance the counter-attacking capabilities of its armed forces and reinforce ties with Russia.

    The remarks, no doubt, were intended directly for the Trump administration. 

  • John Whitehead: What I Don't Like About Life In Post-9/11 America

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

     – Edward Abbey, American author

    Life in a post-9/11 America increasingly feels like an endless free fall down a rabbit hole into a terrifying, dystopian alternative reality in which the citizenry has no rights, the government is no friend to freedom, and everything we ever knew and loved about the values and principles that once made this country great has been turned on its head.

    We’ve walked a strange and harrowing road since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties.

    We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade the citizenry to march in lockstep with a police state.

    Osama Bin Laden right warned that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

    These past 17 years have proven Bin Laden right in his prediction.

    What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. 

    The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation is being locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

    This is not freedom.

    This is a jail cell.

    Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, roving VIPR raids and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

    Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

    Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.

    Since the towers fell on 9/11, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, and denied due process.

    In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, underwear bombers and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the true enemy to freedom was lurking among us all the while.

    The U.S. government now poses a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.

    While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations, and foment civil unrest in order to keep the military industrial complex gainfully employed.

    No, the U.S. government is not the citizenry’s friend, nor is it our protector, and life in the United States of America post-9/11 is no picnic.

    In the interest of full disclosure, here are some of the things I don’t like about life in a post-9/11 America:

    I don’t like being treated as if my only value to the government is as a source of labor and funds.

    I don’t like being viewed as a consumer and bits of data.

    I don’t like being spied on and treated as if I have no right to privacy, especially in my own home.

    I don’t like government officials who lobby for my vote only to ignore me once elected. I don’t like having representatives incapable of andunwilling to represent me. I don’t like taxation without representation.

    I don’t like being bullied by government bureaucrats, vigilantes masquerading as cops, or faceless technicians.

    I don’t like being railroaded into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.

    I don’t like being forced to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military industrial complex.

    I don’t like being subjected to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA.

    I don’t like VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.

    I don’t like fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement.

    I don’t like being treated like an underling by government agents who are supposed to be working for me. I don’t like being threatened, intimidated, bribed, beaten and robbed by individuals entrusted with safeguarding my rights. I don’t like being silenced, censored and marginalized. I don’t like my movements being tracked, my conversations being recorded, and my transactions being catalogued.

    I don’t like free speech zones, roving bubble zones and trespass laws that restrict Americans’ First Amendment rights.

    I don’t like laws that criminalize Americans for otherwise lawful activities such as holding religious studies at home, growing vegetables in their yard, and collecting rainwater.

    I don’t like the NDAA, which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely.

    I don’t like the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.

    I don’t like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has become America’s standing army in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country. 

    I don’t like military weapons such as armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like being used against the American citizens.

    I don’t like government agencies such as the DHS, Post Office, Social Security Administration and Wildlife stocking up on hollow-point bullets. And I definitely don’t like the implications of detention centers being built that could house American citizens. 

    I don’t like the fact that police departments across the country “have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”

    I don’t like America’s infatuation with locking people up for life for non-violent crimes. There are thousands of people in America serving life sentences for non-violent crimes, including theft of a jacket, siphoning gasoline from a truck, stealing tools, and attempting to cash a stolen check.

    I don’t like paying roughly $29,000 a year per inmate just to keep these nonviolent offenders in prison.

    I don’t like having my hard-earned taxpayer dollars used against me.

    I don’t like the partisan nature of politics today, which has so polarized Americans that they are incapable of standing in unity against the government’s abuses.

    I don’t like the entertainment drivel that passes for news coverage today.

    I don’t like the fact that those within a 25-mile range of the border are getting a front row seat to the American police state, as Border Patrol agents are now allowed to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant.

    I don’t like public schools that treat students as if they were prison inmates. I don’t like zero tolerance laws that criminalize childish behavior. I don’t like a public educational system that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.

    I don’t like police precincts whose primary purpose—whether through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, or red light cameras—is making a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect. I don’t like militarized police and their onerous SWAT team raids.

    I don’t like Department of Defense and DHS programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police. I don’t like local police dressing and acting as if they were the military while viewing me as an enemy combatant.

    I don’t like government programs that reward cops for raiding homes and terrorizing homeowners.

    I don’t like being treated as if I have no rights.

    I don’t like cash-strapped states cutting deals with private corporations to run the prisons in exchange for maintaining 90% occupancy rates for at least 20 years. I don’t like the fact that American prisons have become the source of cheap labor for Corporate America.

    I don’t like answering to an imperial president who operates above the law.

    I don’t like the injustice that passes for justice in the courts.

    I don’t like prosecutors so hell bent on winning that they allow innocent people to suffer for crimes they didn’t commit.

    I don’t like the double standards that allow government officials to break laws with immunity, while average Americans get the book thrown at them.

    I don’t like cops who shoot first and ask questions later.

    I don’t like police dogs being treated with more respect and afforded more rights than American citizens.

    I don’t like living in a suspect society.

    I don’t like Americans being assumed guilty until they prove their innocence.

    I don’t like technology being used as a double-edged sword against us.

    Most of all, I don’t like feeling as if there’s no hope for turning things around.

    Now there are those who would suggest that if I don’t like things about this country, I should leave and go elsewhere. Certainly, there are those among my fellow citizens who are leaving for friendlier shores. 

    However, I’m not giving up on this country without a fight.

    I plan to keep fighting, writing, speaking up, speaking out, shouting if necessary, filing lawsuits, challenging the status quo, writing letters to the editor, holding my representatives accountable, thinking nationally but acting locally, and generally raising a ruckus anytime the government attempts to undermine the Constitution and ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

    Our country may be in deep trouble, but all is not yet lost.

    The first step begins with you. 

    1. Get educated. Know your rights. Take time to read the Constitution. Study and understand history because the tales of those who seek power and those who resist them is an age-old one. The Declaration of Independence is a testament to this struggle and the revolutionary spirit that overcame tyranny. Understand the vital issues of the day so that you can be cognizant of the threats to freedom. Stay informed about current events and legislation.

    2. Get involved. Become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think nationally, act locally.” America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point. Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Getting involved in local politics is one way to bring about change.

    3. Get organized. Understand your strengths and weaknesses and tap into your resources. Play to your strengths and assets. Conduct strategy sessions to develop both the methods and ways to attack the problem. Prioritize your issues and battles. Don’t limit yourself to protests and paper petitions. Think outside the box. Time is short, and resources are limited, so use your resources in the way they count the most.

    4. Be creative. Be bold and imaginative, for this is guerilla warfare—not to be fought with tanks and guns but through creative methods of dissent and resistance. Creatively responding to circumstances will often be one of your few resources if you are to be an effective agent of change. Every creative effort, no matter how small, is significant.

    5. Use the media. Effective use of the media is essential. Attracting media coverage not only enhances and magnifies your efforts, it is also a valuable education tool. It publicizes your message to a much wider audience. 

    6. Start brushfires for freedom. Take heart that you are not alone. You come from a long, historic line of individuals who have put their beliefs and lives on the line to keep freedom alive. Engage those around you in discussions about issues of importance. Challenge them to be part of a national dialogue. As I have often said, one person at a city planning meeting with a protest sign is an irritant. Three individuals at the same meeting with the same sign are a movement. You will find that those in power fear and respect numbers. This is not to say that lone crusaders are not important. There are times when you will find yourself totally alone in the stand you take. However, there is power in numbers. Politicians understand this. So get out there and start drumming up support for your cause.

    7. Take action. Be prepared to mobilize at a moment’s notice. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you’re located or what resources are at your disposal. What matters is that you recognize the problems and care enough to do something about them. Whether you’re 8, 28 or 88 years old, you have something unique to contribute. You don’t have to be a hero. You just have to show up and be ready to take action.

    8. Be forward-looking. Beware of being so “in the moment” that you neglect to think of the bigger picture. Develop a vision for the future. Is what you’re hoping to achieve enduring? Have you developed a plan to continue to educate others about the problems you’re hoping to tackle and ensure that others will continue in your stead? Take the time to impart the value of freedom to younger generations, for they will be at the vanguard of these battles someday.

    9. Develop fortitude. What is it that led to the successful protest movements of the past headed by people such as Martin Luther King Jr.? Resolve. King refused to be put off. And when the time came, he was willing to take to the streets for what he believed and even go to jail if necessary. King risked having an arrest record by committing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. A caveat is appropriate here. Before resorting to nonviolent civil disobedience, all reasonable alternatives should be exhausted. If there is an opportunity to alter the course of events through normal channels (for example, negotiation, legal action or legislation), they should be attempted.

    10. Be selfless and sacrificial. Freedom is not free—there is always a price to be paid and a sacrifice to be made. If any movement is to be truly successful, it must be manned by individuals who seek a greater good and do not waver from their purposes. It will take boldness, courage and great sacrifice. Rarely will fame, power and riches be found at the end of this particular road. Those who travel it inevitably find the way marked by hardship, persecution and strife. Yet there is no easy way. 

    11. Remain optimistic and keep hope alive.  Although our rights are increasingly coming under attack, we still have certain freedoms. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we can still fight back. We have the right to dissent, to protest and even to vigorously criticize or oppose the government and its laws. The Constitution guarantees us these rights. In a country such as the United States, a citizen armed with a knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the fortitude to stand and fight can still be a force to be reckoned with, but it will mean speaking out when others are silent.

    Practice persistence, along with perseverance, and the possibilities are endless. You can be the voice of reason. Use your voice to encourage others. Much can be accomplished by merely speaking out. Oftentimes, all it takes is one lone voice to get things started. So if you really care and you’re serious and want to help change things for the better, dust off your First Amendment tools and take a stand – even if it means being ostracized by those who would otherwise support you.

    It won’t be easy, but take heart. And don’t give up.

  • Cryogenics Firm Sued For $1 Million After Mistakenly Cremating Scientist's Body

    Apparently somebody wasn’t using their head.

    A cryogenics firm based in Scottsdale, Ariz. is in hot water after it mistakenly cremated the body of a renowned scientist, preserving only his head, against the wishes of the scientists’ surviving family. Now, the man’s son is hoping to sue the company for $1 million due to the “emotional distress” he suffered as a result of the mistake made by the. The firm, known as the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, has been freezing clients’ heads and bodies since 1982, according to the Daily Telegraph.

    The company is facing a $1 million lawsuit after Kurt Pilgeram said he was sent a package from Alcor “which purportedly contained his father’s cremated remains, except allegedly for his father’s head,” which was being preserved in one of the company’ coolers.

    Max

    Dr. Max More, founder of Alcor (courtesy of the Daily Telegraph)

    According to legal documents, Pilgeram was “shocked, horrified and extremely distressed” when he learned the fate of his father’s body (we imagine he also wanted a refund for $120,000, the difference between the $200,000 the company charges for full-body preservation and the preservation of just a head)

    The younger Pilgeram said having his full body preserved was extremely important to his late father. Meanwhile, Alcor, which is run by Dr. Max More, a British-born scientist, was obligated under an agreement to preserve all of his father’s remains “no matter how damaged” and that the company violated this agreement when it cremated him.

    Dr. Laurence Pilgeram devoted much of his career to researching the aging process. He died back in 2015 at the age of 90 of what’s believed to have been a heart attack.

    The Pilgeram family is now suing Alcor for $1 million.

    “Mr. Pilgeram claims his father would never have paid for the service if he knew his entire body wasn’t going to be preserved,” the lawsuit states.

    Alcor is presently responsible for preserving the remains of 159 individuals.

  • China's 'Digital' Totalitarian Experiment

    Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

    • China’s “social credit” system, which will assign every person a constantly updated score based on observed behaviors, is designed to control conduct by giving the ruling Communist Party the ability to administer punishments and hand out rewards. The former deputy director of the State Council’s development research center says the system should be administered so that “discredited people become bankrupt”.

    • Officials prevented Liu Hu, a journalist, from taking a flight because he had a low score. According to the Communist Party-controlled Global Times, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips.

    • Chinese officials are using the lists for determining more than just access to planes and trains. “I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school,” Liu said. “You feel you’re being controlled by the list all the time.”

    • Chinese leaders have long been obsessed with what Jiang Zemin in 1995 called “informatization, automation, and intelligentization,” and they are only getting started Given the capabilities they are amassing, they could, the argument goes, make defiance virtually impossible. The question now is whether the increasingly defiant Chinese people will accept President Xi’s all-encompassing vision.

    By 2020, Chinese officials plan to have about 626 million surveillance cameras operating throughout the country. Those cameras will, among other things, feed information into a national “social credit system.”

    That system, when it is in place in perhaps two years, will assign to every person in China a constantly updated score based on observed behaviors. For example, an instance of jaywalking, caught by one of those cameras, will result in a reduction in score.

    Although officials might hope to reduce jaywalking, they seem to have far more sinister ambitions, such as ensuring conformity to Communist Party political demands. In short, the government looks as if it is determined to create what the Economist called “the world’s first digital totalitarian state.”

    China’s President Xi Jinping is not merely an authoritarian leader. He evidently believes the Party must have absolute control over society and he must have absolute control over the Party. He is taking China back to totalitarianism as he seeks Mao-like control over all aspects of society. (Photo by Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

    That social credit system, once perfected, will surely be extended to foreign companies and individuals.

    At present, there are more than a dozen national blacklists, and about three dozen various localities have been operating experimental social credit scoring systems. Some of those systems have failed miserably. Others, such as the one in Rongcheng in Shandong province, have been considered successful.

    In the Rongcheng system, each resident starts with 1,000 points, and, based upon their changing score, are ranked from A+++ to D. The system has affected behavior: incredibly for China, drivers stop for pedestrians at crosswalks.

    Drivers stop at crosswalks because residents in that city have, as Foreign Policyreported, “embraced” the social credit system. Some like the system so much that they have set up micro social credit systems in schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Social credit systems obviously answer a need for what people in other societies take for granted.

    Yet, can what works on a city level be extended across China? As technology advances and data banks are added, the small experimental programs and the national lists will eventually be merged into one countrywide system. The government has already begun to roll out its “Integrated Joint Operations Platform,” which aggregates data from various sources such as cameras, identification checks, and “wifi sniffers.”

    So, what will the end product look like? “It will not be a unified platform where one can type in his or her ID and get a single three-digit score that will decide their lives,” Foreign Policy says.

    Despite the magazine’s assurances, this type of system is precisely what Chinese officials say they want. After all, they tell us the purpose of the initiative is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

    That description is not an exaggeration. Officials prevented Liu Hu, a journalist, from taking a flight because he had a low score. The Global Times, a tabloid that belongs to the Communist Party-owned People’s Daily, reported that, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips.

    Chinese officials, however, are using the lists for determining more than just access to planes and trains. “I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school,” Liu said. “You feel you’re being controlled by the list all the time.”

    The system is designed to control conduct by giving the ruling Communist Party the ability to administer punishments and hand out rewards. And the system could end up being unforgiving. Hou Yunchun, a former deputy director of the State Council’s development research center, said at a forum in Beijing in May that the social credit system should be administered so that “discredited people become bankrupt”.

    “If we don’t increase the cost of being discredited, we are encouraging discredited people to keep at it,” Hou said. “That destroys the whole standard.”

    Not every official has such a vindictive attitude, but it appears that all share the assumption, as the dovish Zhi Zhenfeng of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said, that “discredited people deserve legal consequences.”

    President Xi Jinping, the final and perhaps only arbiter in China, has made it clear how he feels about the availability of second chances. “Once untrustworthy, always restricted,” the Chinese ruler says.

    What happens, then, to a country where only the compliant are allowed to board a plane or be rewarded with discounts for government services? No one quite knows because never before has a government had the ability to constantly assess everyone and then enforce its will. The People’s Republic has been more meticulous in keeping files and ranking residents than previous Chinese governments, and computing power and artificial intelligence are now giving China’s officials extraordinary capabilities.

    Beijing is almost certain to extend the social credit system, which has roots in attempts to control domestic enterprises, to foreign companies. Let us remember that Chinese leaders this year have taken on the world’s travel industry by forcing hotel chains and airlines to show Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China, so they have demonstrated determination to intimidate and punish. Once the social credit system is up and running, it would be a small step to include non-Chinese into that system, extending Xi’s tech-fueled totalitarianism to the entire world.

    The dominant narrative in the world’s liberal democracies is that tech favors totalitarianism. It is certainly true that, unrestrained by privacy concerns, hardline regimes are better able to collect, analyze, and use data, which could provide a decisive edge in applying artificial intelligence A democratic government may be able to compile a no-fly list, but none could ever come close to implementing Xi Jinping’s vision of a social credit system.

    Chinese leaders have long been obsessed with what then-President Jiang Zemin in 1995 called “informatization, automation, and intelligentization,” and they are only getting started. Given the capabilities they are amassing, they could, the argument goes, make defiance virtually impossible.

    Technology might even make liberal democracy and free-markets “obsolete” writesYuval Noah Harari of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the Atlantic. “The main handicap of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century — the desire to concentrate all information and power in one place — may become their decisive advantage in the 21st century,” he writes.

    There is no question that technology empowers China’s one-party state to repress people effectively. Exhibit A for this proposition is, of course, the country’s social credit system.

    Yet China’s communists will probably overreach. The country’s experience so far with social credit systems suggests that officials are their own worst enemies. An early experiment to build such a system in Suining county in Jiangsu province was a failure:

    “Both residents and state media blasted it for its seemingly unfair and arbitrary criteria, with one state-run newspaper comparing the system to the ‘good citizen’ certificates issued by Japan during its wartime occupation of China.”

    The Rongcheng system has been more successful because its scope has been relatively modest.

    Xi Jinping will not be as restrained as Rongcheng’s officials. He evidently believes the Party must have absolute control over society and he must have absolute control over the Party. It is simply inconceivable that he will not include in the national social credit system, when it is stitched together, political criteria. Already Chinese officials are trying to use artificial intelligence to predict anti-Party behavior.

    Xi Jinping is not merely an authoritarian leader, as it is often said. He is taking China back to totalitarianism as he seeks Mao-like control over all aspects of society.

    The question now is whether the increasingly defiant Chinese people will accept Xi’s all-encompassing vision. In recent months, many have taken to the streets: truck drivers striking over costs and fees, army veterans marching for pensions, investors blocking government offices to get money back from fraudsters, Muslims surrounding mosques to stop demolition, and parents protesting the scourge of adulterated vaccines, among others. Chinese leaders obviously think their social credit system will stop these and other expressions of discontent.

    Let us hope that China’s people are not in fact discouraged. Given the breadth of the Communist Party’s ambitions, everyone, Chinese or not, has a stake in seeing that Beijing’s digital totalitarianism fails.

  • Fear, Intimidation And Wage Theft: Amazon Delivery Drivers Suffer 'Inhumane' Working Conditions

    As Whole Foods workers push back against the crushing demands of their Amazonian overlords, stories of more labor abuses perpetuated by the e-commerce giant – which has developed a reputation for ruthless efficiency – are coming to light.

    AMZN

    The latest horror story was published on Tuesday by Business Insider, and purports to tell the stories of drivers for Amazon delivery subcontractors who complain about unsafe working conditions and pressure to deliver packages on time at all costs – even if it means speeding, peeing in bottles or delaying critical medical care.

    In interviews over the course of eight months, drivers described a variety of alleged abuses, including lack of overtime pay, missing wages, intimidation, and favoritism. Drivers also described a physically demanding work environment in which, under strict time constraints, they felt pressured to drive at dangerously high speeds, blow stop signs, and skip meal and bathroom breaks.

    Many of their accounts were supported by text messages, photographs, internal emails, legal filings, and peers.

    BI reportedly spoke with 31 current or former drivers for its subcontracted “Amazon Flex” delivery service. These drivers have become a crucial part of its push to circumvent FedEx and UPS, and some of the stories that the organization managed to corroborate wold be unacceptable anywhere else.

    The BI story began with one worker’s story about being told by their supervisor to drop off their packages before heading to the hospital after slicing his hand to the bone.

    Zachariah Vargas was six hours into his shift delivering packages for Amazon.

    He was about to drop off a package when he accidentally slammed the door of his truck on his hand. The door clicked shut, trapping his middle and ring fingers.

    Once he freed his fingers, the blood began to pour. Both of Vargas’ arms started to shake involuntarily. The lacerations were deep. Vargas thought he glimpsed bone when he wiped away the blood.

    Panicked, Vargas called his dispatch supervisor, who was working at a nearby Amazon facility.

    He said he received no sympathy.

    “The first thing they asked was, ‘How many packages do you have left?'” he told Business Insider.

    When the employee pushed back, his supervisor, who operated out of an Amazon facility using Amazon equipment, even though they technically functioned as a subcontractor, gestured to an Amazon floor employee and issued a chilling warning.

    The same manager ordered Vargas to unload his truck and pointed toward an Amazon official at the warehouse and told him: “Amazon is watching you. They don’t like when undelivered packages come back.”

    But while these employees suffer abuses and indignities meted out by their mercenary bosses, Amazon is reveling in its “cost-effective” employment structure whereby it can utilize employee labor without taking responsibility for the employees.

    For Amazon, paying third-party companies to deliver packages is a cost-effective alternative to providing full employment. And the speed of two-day shipping is great for consumers. But delivering that many packages isn’t easy, and the job is riddled with problems, according to interviews with 31 current or recently employed Amazon-affiliated delivery workers with experience across 14 third-party companies spanning 13 cities.

    Given the company’s reputation for treating its workers like expendable meat puppets, it’s hardly a surprise that Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (Stop BEZOS) Act. The bill, which was named to implicate Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, would tax corporations with at least 500 employees for the value of public assistance those workers receive.

    * * *

    But while Amazon contractors struggle to make ends meet, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and the rest of the company’s board are heading to Washington for a series of meetings, dinners and even a widely hyped speaking engagement that have kick-started rumors that Washington DC will be the location of Amazon’s HQ2. The company, which launched the search a year ago, has reportedly been kicking the tires of different locations in the DC metro area, including towns in Maryland and Virginia, according to the Washington Post. 

    Amazon has booked the Renwick Gallery for a 40-person dinner on Tuesday, though neither the museum or Amazon would offer any details about the event. On Thursday, Bezos is set to give a talk at the Economic Club of Washington that is expected to be its most popular event since Warren Buffett spoke there in 2012. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser are all expected to attend. Bezos will also deliver the keynote address at an Air Force conference at National Harbor on Sept. 19, which WaPo suggested could be tied to Amazon Web Services’ pursuit of a massive contract with the Pentagon that could be worth $10 billion over 10 years.

    And despite the recent FAANG pullback, Amazon shares continue to hover just below $2,000 a share, leaving Bezos, the world’s wealthiest man, with a fortune of more than $150 billion.

  • ECB Preview: Taper On Autopilot As Growth Is Downgraded

    Unanimous expectations for tomorrow’s ECB policy decision – due at 7:45AM ET with a press conference at 8:30AM ET – is for the central bank to leave its three key rates and tapering schedule unchanged, while macroeconomic projections are set to see a minor downgrade to growth forecasts. During the presser, Draghi is set to be grilled on trade protectionism, concerns surrounding Italy and the Bank’s reinvestment policy.

    Below is a full preview of what to expect tomorrow, courtesy of RanSquawk.

    BACKGROUND

    PREVIOUS MEETING: The July meeting saw little in the way of fireworks after the Bank reiterated their view that they expect key rates to remain at present levels at least through the Summer of 2019, and as long as necessary to ensure the continued sustained convergence of inflation. During the accompanying press conference, Draghi gave little away and pushed back on questions trying to get him to pin down an exact timeframe for the next rate move by the ECB. Furthermore, Draghi stated that uncertainties relating to the trade environment remain prominent, but the Euro area economy is solid and broad-based.

    ECB MINUTES: The minutes from the meeting were equally uninspiring and provided the market with little in the way of traction with the account highlighting that the threat of protectionism and prominent trade tensions could weigh on confidence. Furthermore, policymakers were unanimous in maintaining the policy stance and were satisfied that the June decisions are well understood.

    SOURCE REPORTS: The only noteworthy sources since the previous meeting came this week with people familiar with the matter suggesting that the ECB will marginally downgrade growth forecasts and see downside risks to growth due to weaker external demand; inflation outlook set to be unchanged.

    ECB RHETORIC: Commentary from the Bank has also been quiet over the summer period with little in the way of market moving rhetoric. Some have placed focus on the recent comms from ECB’s Rehn who some view as a potential successor to Draghi next year, with the central banker recently suggesting that markets are correctly interpreting the ECB’s rate guidance. Elsewhere, the new(ish) VP at the Bank, de Guindos, stated that economic growth in the Euro area remains solid and broad-based whilst noting that risks surrounding the growth outlook are balanced, but uncertainties remain; something which appears to be in-fitting with the central narrative on the governing council. Finally, Nowotny has continued to stick to his hawkish stance by recommending that the ECB should focus on getting the deposit rate out of negative territory and is in favour of a faster pace of policy normalisation.

    DATA: In terms of developments since the previous meeting, Q2 Q/Q GDP printed at 0.4% (ECB Exp. 0.5%) with Y/Y growth slowing to 2.2% vs. 2.5% seen in Q1. On the inflation front, July headline Y/Y CPI rose to 2.1% (highest since Dec 2012) from the 2.0% seen in June, whilst core CPI rose to 1.1% in July (highest since Sep 2017) but remains subdued overall, according to GS. Elsewhere, for soft data, UBS highlights that “the July and August PMIs indicate an unchanged pace of growth, at 0.4% Q/Q; this would imply a Y/Y rate of 1.8%. In terms of the FX rate, GS states that the EUR has risen around 1% on a TWI-basis. Finally, encouraging signs have been seen on the wage front with Q2 wage growth picking up by 2.2%.

    CURRENT ECB FORWARD GUIDANCE (INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT)

    RATES: We continue to expect them to remain at their present levels at least through the summer of 2019, and in any case for as long as necessary to ensure the continued sustained convergence of inflation to levels that are below, but close to, 2% over the medium term. (Jul 26th)

    ASSET PURCHASES: We anticipate that, after September 2018, subject to incoming data confirming our medium-term inflation outlook, we will reduce the monthly pace of the net asset purchases to €15 billion until the end of December 2018 and then end net purchases. We intend to reinvest the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the APP for an extended period of time after the end of our net asset purchases, and in any case for as long as necessary to maintain favourable liquidity conditions and an ample degree of monetary accommodation. (Jul 26th)

    GROWTH/TRADE: The risks surrounding the euro area growth outlook can still be assessed as broadly balanced. Uncertainties related to global factors, notably the threat of protectionism, remain prominent. Moreover, the risk of persistent heightened financial market volatility continues to warrant monitoring. (Jul 26th)

    INFLATION: The underlying strength of the economy confirms our confidence that the sustained convergence of inflation to our aim will continue in the period ahead and will be maintained even after a gradual winding-down of our net asset purchases. Nevertheless, significant monetary policy stimulus is still needed to support the further build-up of domestic price pressures and headline inflation developments over the medium term. (Jul 26th)

    POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS TO ECB FORWARD GUIDANCE (INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT)

    RATES: No changes expected given that the guidance was altered at the June meeting and there has been little in the way to alter their expectations for rate lift-off, particularly given that the forecast is towards the back-end of next year. Changes on this front are not expected until nearer the time of the first rate hike. Interestingly, SocGen have floated the idea of a potential Fed-style dot-plot but there has been little sign thus far of such a policy being implemented.

    ASSET PURCHASES: Similar to rate guidance, given that changes were made on this front at the June meeting and there has been little reason for the ECB to make adjustments on curtailing bond purchases, this part of the statement is expected to remain the same. At this stage, only a major imminent economic crisis could deter the ECB from carrying on with their planned unwind.

    GROWTH/TRADE: As stated above, this week’s ECB source reports suggested the Bank sees downside risks to growth due to weaker external demand. That said, a complete overhaul of communication is seen as unlikely as policymakers attempt to navigate their way out of their PSPP without incident. On the trade front, SocGen suggests that “the Governing Council is not expected to have a better picture of the risk of a trade war with the US,” whilst Morgan Stanley expect the issue of trade protectionism to be continued to be described as a ‘prominent risk’.

    INFLATION: RBC “don’t expect Draghi’s central message on inflation to change much from the last meeting” with the ECB President due to downplay the importance of the recent performance for headline CPI given the struggles the Bank continues to face with core inflation.

    WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR

    ECB STAFF PROJECTIONS:

    • ECB JUNE 2018 HICP PROJECTIONS: HICP 1.7% in 2018 (Prev. 1.4%), 1.7% in 2019 (Prev. 1.4%), 1.7% 2020 (Prev. 1.7%).
    • ECB JUNE 2018 GROWTH PROJECTIONS: GDP in 2018 2.1% (Prev. 2.4%), 1.9% in 2019 (Prev. 1.9%), 1.7% in 2020 (Prev 1.7%)

    Growth: Overall, growth forecasts are set to see little in the way of material changes as per source reports. UBS argues that there is a possibility for a minor downward revision to the 2018 2.1% forecast given the failure of Q2 EZ GDP (0.4% Q/Q) to show the rebound that some had been looking for (including the ECB) to 0.5%. However, UBS tempers this by highlighting that upward revisions to prior GDP prints could act as an off-setting factor. 2019 and 2020 growth forecasts are largely seen as unchanged.

    Inflation: Inflation projections are set to come in unchanged from the levels predicted in June (as per sources) with RBC explaining that given the cut-off period for forecasts, the energy weakness seen in mid-August will lead to a lower oil price assumption than in June. Furthermore, RBC anticipate the ECB using a slightly firmer trade-weighted exchange rate but ultimately don’t see either of these changes being of sufficient magnitude to impact the inflation profile.

    PRESS CONFERENCE:

    In a similar vein to the previous press conference, this week’s offering by Draghi could once again disappoint those looking for volatility. With the ECB seemingly on auto-pilot mode ahead of the conclusion of its PSPP programme and not expected to move on rates until “at least through the summer of 2019”, the topics for discussion are relatively limited.

    It is unlikely that journalists will use this meeting as an opportunity to grill the ECB President on what exactly “at least through the summer of 2019” means given his resistance to such questions last time around. Furthermore, Draghi will also likely take a similar approach this time to any questions about his tenure despite continued speculation over who his successor could be next year.

    Naturally, a bulk of the focus for the press conference could centre around the updated economic projections, trade protectionism and general economic commentary (as discussed above) with no immediate policy decisions expected.

    That said, one matter that could be a line of inquiry at the conference could be the Bank’s view on reinvestments. More specifically, with the PSPP winding down during Q4, markets will require greater clarity on the ECB’s approach to reinvestments with speculation fuelled by reports in July over a potential “operation twist” mechanism. UBS believes that the “ECB has some flexibility to extend the duration of monthly PSPP purchases to at least partially offset the PSPP portfolio maturity decay”. However, the Swiss-bank concedes that such an issue faces “implementation constraints due to issue(r) limits, limited flexibility on capital key allocation and fragmented liquidity across the EGB markets are likely to prevent the ECB from formalising a duration target for the PSPP portfolio”. Overall, SocGen do not see this as a pressing issue and ultimately “see no material policy impact from these decisions”.

    Focus continues to reside on Italy with the newly-installed government taking an increasingly conciliatory tone with regards to their budgetary intentions. Despite this seemingly new approach from the populists, a clash between the nation and the EU seems almost inevitable. Such a clash would lead to grave concerns over Italy’s fiscal discipline with worries also heightened by fears over the nation’s intentions for debt held at the ECB. Subsequently, journalists will likely probe Draghi on his views on the matter and what mechanisms the Bank has to counter any potential Italian crisis. However, Goldman Sachs expect “Mr. Draghi to avoid making any direct market commentary related to Italy or Italian policy proposals. With regards to ECB treatment of Italian debt, we expect Mr. Draghi to be nonspecific and refer to the general rules already in place.

    MARKET REACTION:

    See below for ING’s ECB scenario analysis chart

Digest powered by RSS Digest