U.S. Says Military Can Respond to Domestic Cyberterror Threats

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has adopted new procedures for using the Defense Department’s vast array of cyberwarfare capabilities in case of an attack on vital computer networks inside the United States, delicately navigating historic rules that restrict military action on American soil.

The system would mirror that used when the military is called on in natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires. A presidential order dispatches the military forces, working under the control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Under the new rules, the president would approve the use of the military’s expertise in computer-network warfare, and the Department of Homeland Security would direct the work.

Officials involved in drafting the rules said the goal was to ensure a rapid response to a cyberthreat while balancing concerns that civil liberties might be at risk should the military take over such domestic operations.

The rules were deemed essential because most of the government’s computer-network capabilities reside within the Pentagon — while most of the important targets are on domestic soil, whether within the government or in critical private operations like financial networks or a regional power grid.

The new approach will begin with a Department of Homeland Security team deploying to Fort Meade, Md., home to both the National Security Agency, which specializes in electronic espionage, and the military’s new Cyber Command. In exchange, a team of military networking experts would be assigned to the operations center at the Homeland Security Department.

The rules were detailed in a memorandum of agreement signed in late September by Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, but they were not released until last week.

Robert J. Butler, the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary for cyber policy, said the memorandum was intended to cut through legal debates about the authority for operating domestically, and to focus on how best to respond to the threat of attack on critical computer networks.

Mr. Butler said teams of lawyers would watch for potential violations of civil liberties. “We have put protection measures in place,” he said.

The Pentagon is expected to release a full National Defense Strategy for Cyber Operations this year, to be followed by broader interagency guidance from the White House, perhaps in the form of a presidential directive, in 2011.

Congress also is weighing legislation that would update domestic law to deal with advances in computer-based surveillance and cyberwarfare.

William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, underscored the Pentagon’s “need to protect our military networks,” but said that “it’s a national challenge as well.” In an interview with Charlie Rose broadcast Monday by PBS, Mr. Lynn added: “We need to protect our critical infrastructure. We need to protect our intellectual property. And that’s a whole-of-government effort.”

During a visit last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, Mr. Gates lobbied for new partnerships to combat computer threats, while warning that the NATO networks were vulnerable.

“On cybersecurity, the alliance is far behind,” Mr. Gates said. “Our vulnerabilities are well known, but our existing programs to remedy these weaknesses are inadequate.”

Mr. Gates said he was not concerned that secret intelligence shared with allies would be compromised, but he said NATO had weaknesses in its defenses for computer networks at its headquarters and throughout the shared command structure.

First Human Treated with Stem Cells

Doctors have injected millions of human embryonic stem cells into a patient partially paralyzed by a spinal cord injury, marking the beginning of the first carefully designed attempt to test the promising but controversial therapy, officials announced Monday.

The patient was treated Friday at the Shepherd Center, a 132-bed hospital in Atlanta that specializes in spinal cord and brain injuries, according to announcement by the hospital and Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., which is sponsoring the research.

The hospital is one of seven sites participating in the study, which is primarily aimed at testing whether the therapy is safe. Doctors will also conduct tests to see whether the treatment restores sensation or enables the patient to regain movement. No additional information about the first patient was released.

The milestone was welcomed by scientists eager to finally move the research from the laboratory to the clinic, as well as by advocates for patients and by patients hoping for cures. Although the cells have been tested in animals, and some clinics around the world claim to offer therapies using human embryonic stem cells, the trial is the first to have been vetted by a government entity and aimed at carefully evaluating the strategy. After repeated delays, the Food and Drug Administration gave the go-ahead in July.

But the move was criticized by those with moral objections to any research using cells from human embryos, and it is raising concern even among many proponents. Some argue that the experiments are premature, others question whether they are ethical, and many fear that the trials risk disaster for the field if anything goes awry.

"Without knowing more clinical detail, there's little I can say," said Steve Goldman, chairman of the department of neurology at the University of Rochester in New York. "In more general terms . . . I remain concerned about the long-term safety of unpurified grafts of embryonic stem cell derivatives. Time will tell."

David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, said: "Geron is helping their stock price, not science and especially not patients. It will be years before there is hard evidence about safety or effectiveness. Adult stem cells have published evidence documenting effective treatment of spinal cord injury."

Supporters of the privately funded research are confident that it has been exhaustively vetted. The FDA has demanded extensive experiments in the laboratory and on animals to provide evidence that the cells hold promise and are safe enough to test in people.

"Initiating the . . . clinical trial is a milestone for the field of human embryonic stem cell-based therapies," said Thomas B. Okarma, Geron's president and chief executive, in a statement. "This accomplishment results from extensive research and development and a succession of inventive steps."

Donald Peck Leslie, Shepherd's medical director, said: "We are pleased to have our patients participating in this exciting research. Our medical staff will evaluate the patients' progress as part of this study. We look forward to participating in clinical trials that may help people with spinal cord injury."

But some scientists worry that if patients are hurt by the cells - or even if there's no hint that the cells help - it could be a devastating blow to the field. They cite the case of Jesse Gelsinger, whose 1999 death from a gene therapy experiment set that once-highly touted field back years.

Safety worries - most prominently fears that the cells could cause tumors - prompted the FDA to repeatedly demand additional data from Geron, including, most recently, assurance that cysts that developed in mice injected with the cells posed no threat.

Although Geron eventually hopes to test the cells for many different medical problems, the first trial will involve 10 patients who were partially paralyzed by a spinal cord injury in the previous one to two weeks. Surgeons injected the first patient with about 2 million "oligodendrocyte progenitor cells," created from embryonic stem cells, in the hopes that the cells will form a restorative coating around the damaged spinal cord. In tests in hundreds of rats, partially paralyzed animals walked.

Spinal cord injuries, however, are highly unpredictable. Patients often improve on their own, for example, making it difficult to evaluate whether the cells had any effect. Some wonder whether trauma victims who have so recently suffered a life-altering injury will agree to the experiments out of desperation without fully grasping the risks. There is also concern that the therapy risks worsening the patients' conditions, perhaps making them fully paralyzed.

But company officials said they are confident. Even if problems occur, research shows that the cells do not leave the site of the injury, indicating that patients would not suffer any ill effects, Okarma said. Extra precautions, including assigning each subject an independent advocate, will guarantee that volunteers fully understand their decisions, he said.

In the meantime, officials at Advanced Cell Technology of Santa Monica, Calif., are hoping for the FDA's go-ahead to start injecting 50,000 to 200,000 cells into the eyes of 12 patients with Stargardt's macular dystrophy. "Retinal pigmented epithelial cells," also made from human embryonic stem cells, should replace those ravaged by the progressive loss of eyesight, which usually begins in childhood. Studies in rats found that the cells helped prevent further vision loss and even restored some sight. The company hopes that the approach will work for many conditions, including macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness among the elderly.

The announcement comes as the future of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research remains in doubt. A federal judge ruled in August that the Obama administration's more permissive policy for funding the research violated a federal law prohibiting taxpayer money being used for research that involves the destruction of human embryos. The Justice Department is appealing the decision.

Democrats Attempt at Full Disclosure for Donors

Democrats and their allies are broadening their attacks on campaign spending by pro-Republican groups, hoping to force the disclosure of donors' identities and curtail a lucrative source of financing for their rivals.

Liberal activist group MoveOn.org and nonprofit groups Public Citizen and Public Campaign plan to press media outlets that run campaign advertising to question whether the cash used for the ad buys is legal for that purpose.

The groups are also asking the U.S. Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service to investigate the pro-Republican groups and the sources of their ad spending.

"We're going to keep hounding every group we can, filing complaints with the IRS, using every avenue we can to keep the spotlight on them, and hopefully someone's going to come forward" and name donors, says Public Citizen chief lobbyist Craig Holman.

Honing a campaign message, President Barack Obama and Democratic Party officials have in recent days strongly suggested the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups, including two run by Republican strategist Karl Rove, are illegally using money from foreign nationals or companies to fund U.S. political advertising.

The groups have repeatedly denied the charges.

The line of attack is prompting some Washington strategists to tell foreign-owned corporations to stay clear of the Nov. 2 midterm elections. It is legal for U.S. units of an overseas corporations to make independent campaign expenditures, as long as all decisions on its spending is made by U.S. citizens.

"It's a difficult enough economic environment without being targeted as a bad guy," said Joshua Zive, campaign finance attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP in Washington, adding he has passed that advice on to a dozen foreign-owned companies. "There is a broad concern that the domestic subsidiaries of foreign parent companies are a convenient target to demagogue."

The White House has said its goal is to pressure the groups into naming their backers. The Chamber's chief lobbyist Bruce Josten said, "We are seeing an attempt to demonize specific groups and distract Americans from a failed economic agenda."

The political clash centers on a Supreme Court ruling in January that allows companies and unions to make unlimited independent campaign spending on behalf of a candidate.

In an election year that favors the GOP, much of this corporate spending has gone to GOP-leaning non-profit groups, including the Chamber, which aren't required to disclose the source of their donations. For the first time in years, cash from the right is close to drawing even with cash raised by unions.

The reluctance to spend appears more widespread among big corporations, which tend to be relatively conservative, supporting incumbents and dividing political spending between both parties.

"We are responsible to our shareholders, and there are a number of us who are just going to avoid this election and focus instead on lobbying spending when the composition of Congress is clear," said a chief executive who is a member of the Business Roundtable, which is made up of the nation's biggest listed corporations. Unlike the chamber, the roundtable does not spend money on elections.

Some companies are confining themselves to spending by less-controversial political action committees-corporate bodies funded by employee contributions-which are limited to $5,000 per candidate per election.

A political action committee "is not an instrument to execute a political strategy as much as it is to develop relationships and goodwill," said Erick Gustafson, director of government relations at consultants Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. which has decided not to make any independent expenditures.

Mr. Gustafson runs the firm's political action committee, which will contribute about $200,000 this election year, to Democrats and Republicans.

SCOTUS to Hear Vaccine Case

WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments later on Tuesday in a case that could shake up protections aimed at keeping vaccine makers in business.

The high court has agreed to hear a Pennsylvania case involving a lawsuit by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, now 18, who suffered seizures after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, one of the regular childhood vaccines.

Normally, such cases are referred to a special no-fault program that compensates people genuinely harmed by vaccines. In this case, the parents, Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer Inc (PFE.N).

They say the vaccine has an outmoded and flawed design and contained toxins that caused the seizures. They say Hannah has suffered developmental problems since then.

At issue is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Congress passed the law to prevent repeated lawsuits against vaccine makers and says no manufacturer is liable for injuries from "side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

The question before the court is whether suits over the design of a vaccine may bypass the vaccine compensation system.

State courts have issued conflicting rulings on the question.

The Georgia Supreme Court found that federal law allows some design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers while a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia ruled Congress expressly prohibited such lawsuits in an effort to shield manufacturers from liability.

President Barack Obama's administration agrees federal law prevents such design defect lawsuits in state courts. The Department of Justice filed a friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against the Bruesewitz family.

Public health experts argue vaccines are vital to the health of the nation as a whole and say no drug company will make them if they must fear repeated lawsuits.

"Withdrawal of a vaccine is particularly damaging because vaccines are administered not only to immunize individuals, but also 'to reduce transmission of infection and thereby to prevent disease even in non-vaccinated individuals, thus to protect communities,'" the Justice Department argues.

The vaccine injury program has a pot of money, provided by a tax on vaccines, to pay people genuinely injured by vaccines.

Pfizer has said it was "hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm" the Philadelphia appeals court ruling in Wyeth's favor.

Big Brother Settles Out of Court

See old post for the case:

http://lhsthirdfloor.blogspot.com/2010/02/school-spies-on-students-at-home.html

Lower Merion School District has settled the webcam case that made national headlines after students accused school officials of spying by using the webcam installed on school-issued laptops.

The School District Board approved a $610,000 settlement Monday night.

Board President David Ebby explained on the district website why they settled:

We believe this settlement enables us to move forward in a way that is most sensitive to our students, taxpayers and the entire school district community. The agreement is comprehensive, and effectively resolves all components of the laptop litigation, including the Robbins and Hasan cases and the Graphic Arts insurance case. It is the product of a lengthy, court-ordered mediation involving the active participation of Judge DuBois and Chief Magistrate Judge Reuter. The terms of the agreement have been thoroughly reviewed in a number of executive sessions over the past few weeks. Throughout the entire process, the Board has aggressively sought to protect the interests of our taxpayers.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI and the Montgomery County District Attorney cleared the District, and its employees - current and former -- of any criminal wrongdoing. That was an important moment for us -- it confirmed the results of an independent investigation and the District's own initial findings. The District acknowledged and apologized for any mistakes and addressed them immediately. We revised our policies and procedures, reaffirmed our commitment to technology and put safeguards into place to ensure the privacy of our students, staff and school families.

Ebby claimed that a recent insurance agreement played a large part in the timing of the settlement:

A major impetus behind settling this matter now is the recent agreement by our insurance carrier, Graphic Arts, to cover more than $1.2M of the fees and costs associated with this litigation to date. The proposed settlement costs include $175,000 to be placed in a trust for Blake Robbins, $10,000 for Jalil Hassan and $425,000 for plaintiff's counsel. This settlement is not under seal because as a public entity, we have a responsibility to report all terms of the agreement.

Back in February investigators began to look into WebcamGate after Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents filed a lawsuit accusing officials of remotely taking video and photos through Robbins’ school-issued MacBook.

As many as 1,800 Lower Merion School District students from Lower Merion and Harriton High Schools were given the MacBook notebooks as part of a school program.

The case gained national attention and put into question Harriton’s and Lower Merion’s laptop program.

Today Marks 9th Anniversary in Afghan War

(AFGHANISTAN) -- Thursday marks nine years since the war in Afghanistan began. U.S. troops invaded the country after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in an effort to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Afghan political analyst Haroon Mir says fighting this war is difficult because Pakistan protects Taliban leaders. He tells ABC News Radio, "It is very difficult to defeat this insurgency just by killing rank and file, low-level Taliban fighters. There's no pressure on Taliban leadership, there's no pressure on their financial network, on their training camps."

Mir adds that the Taliban has lasted in the war because they can easily replace their fighters, saying, "They could sustain this kind of war because recruiting low-level Taliban fighters is not a problem because there are so many madrassas. At these madrassas they could recruit thousands and thousands of new Taliban fighters each year."

SCOTUS Opens Session With Speech Case

WASHINGTON — — While members of Westboro Baptist Church waved a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday thanking God for dead soldiers, the nine justices inside tried to define the line at which such public protests become personal attacks during arguments in an emotionally charged case prompted by the picketing of a Maryland Marine's funeral.

Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was 20 years old when he was killed in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, publicity-seeking members of the fire-and-brimstone Kansas congregation — all strangers to the Snyders — appeared at his family's Catholic funeral service in Westminster with posters proclaiming sentiments like "God Hates America" and "Semper Fi Fags." They later posted online a diatribe blaming Snyder's death on the sins of the country and his divorced parents.

Snyder's father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and initially won, though the multimillion-dollar verdict was overturned on appeal. That series of legal decisions vaulted the Maryland case to the country's highest court, where it's testing the boundaries of the First Amendment and putting liberal free-speech advocates in the position of siding with fringe Christians.

"The First Amendment is something that's so critical that it may, in this case, just trump the behavior that most people feel is pretty outrageous," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

The case put several specific questions before the court — addressing the rights of private versus public figures, whether free speech is more important than freedom of religion and peaceful assembly, and whether a funeral constitutes a captive audience that needs protection from certain communication. But at its heart are issues of intellectual freedom and human decency.

Snyder's lawyer, Sean E. Summers, said that the funeral protest was a targeted attack that stripped a family of its right to bury their son with dignity, causing the young man's father physical and mental harm by worsening his diabetes and depression.

"The private, targeted nature of the speech … is what makes it unprotected," Summers said.

But Westboro's side, presented by the lawyer-daughter of the Topeka church's founder, countered with claims that they were simply a "little church" preaching on issues of public interest at a public forum that was likely to draw attention.