Folks might find that section and the rest of this interesting. Hat tip @HavenLabs
— Jimmy Kimmel Live (@JimmyKimmelLive) September 14, 2018
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 16, 2018
— POLITICO (@politico) September 14, 2018
— Nicholas Wadhams (@nwadhams) September 13, 2018
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 10, 2018
AND NOW THIS FROM A SMART TERRIER —
So to recap the day, Trump tweets "17 years since September 11!".
Pompeo's State Department is now calling itself the "Department Of Swagger"
And Trump warns hurricane Florence will be "Very big and very wet"
This is possibly the worst reality show ever pic.twitter.com/0BJA1jaWS3
— Rex the TV terrier (@rexthetvterrier) September 11, 2018
The State Department’s Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) for immigrant visas has been down since at least July 20th. We can confirm that the service affected is specific to immigrant visa applicants and does not affect nonimmigrant visa applications. We understand from a source that the National Visa Center (NVC) that is using the website to allow applicants to send their paperwork to the consulates doesn’t have any information about the reasons or the possible timeframe on when it will be back on. We were told although we’re unable to confirm that “appointments have been canceled this time as well and it affected every consulate in the world that is using the new “faster” digital processing system.”
On July 26, we requested clarification from the Consular Affairs bureau if this is a scheduled maintenance and if they have a time frame when this will be completed. The following is a comment we received from a State Department official on background in response to our inquiry:
The Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) Immigrant Visa web portal is currently unavailable due to maintenance. During this time, IV applicants will be unable to access/login to the CEAC Immigrant Visa Agent (DS-261), Online Immigrant Visa Application (DS-260), or the Immigrant Visa Fee Payment portal. The CEAC Immigrant Visa application Status Check and Nonimmigrant Visa Application (DS-160) are not impacted by this maintenance. For urgent cases that are already at an overseas post, applicants may be asked to complete a paper-based immigrant visa application (DS-230), which will be provided by the local consulate or embassy. We regret the inconvenience to travelers and recognize the hardship for those waiting for visas, and in some cases, their family members or employers in the United States, during this maintenance period.
A quick scan of a few u.s. embassies’ visa webpages indicate no announcement of the system’s unavailability, however, travelstate.gov does have a highlighted announcement at the top of its page that says:
Immigrant visa forms and fee payments are currently unavailable in the Consular Electronic Application Center. We apologize for the inconvenience. We’re working to resolve this and hope to have the system fully functional as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Apparently, some attorneys who made inquiries were told that a planned weekend update to the system resulted in an unexpected “catastrophic failure.” On July 27, travel.state.gov tweeted the following but we’re nowhere near in learning if this was a regularly scheduled update that gone bad, if there are other technical issues, or what is the time frame for bringing this system back online.
Immigrant visa forms and fee payments are currently unavailable in the Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC). We apologize for the inconvenience. We’re working to resolve this and hope to have the system fully functional as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. pic.twitter.com/Hi0pC7iSEi
— Travel – State Dept (@TravelGov) July 27, 2018
@CoryBooker and anyone else who can help are you aware the CEAC website has been down for over 8 days with no end in sight, no alternative way to process and no ability to speak to anyone? #desperateadoptivemama pic.twitter.com/NHwsWFIqYb
— Bethany Brown (@bethanylbrown62) July 30, 2018
CEAC portal currently. Systems been down a week. Can we please get some information on when this service is due to return?
This is halting many VISA applications and many online are concerned that this update means a longer wait time.@TravelGov@StateDept@national_visa@USCIS pic.twitter.com/IvQ8NL16Ks
— Carwen Haf Davies-Thompson (@CarwenoB_show) July 27, 2018
Posted: 2:30 pm PT
With vacant offices and multiple departures from members of the Foreign Service and the State Department, it is hard to keep track sometimes of what’s happening amidst the opportunities and chaos in Foggy Bottom.
Bill Todd, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary & Acting Director General of the Foreign Service & Acting Director of Human Resources apparently has a fresh new title to add to his Twitter profile: Deputy Under Secretary of State for Management, a position discontinued by Congress in 1978.
How did that happen?
Apparently somebody convinced the now outgoing Secretary of State to sign a memo reconstituting this title on March 4. Did anyone bother to inform Secretary Tillerson that the position of Deputy Under Secretary for Management was discontinued specifically since Congress established the permanent position of Under Secretary of State for Management in 1978? And if nobody informed him …
Yo. This is sad.
Since the discontinued title/position was made “live” again a couple of weeks ago, there were people wondering why this title was resurrected now, and without any official announcement. Today, of course, a day before Tillerson is set to exit Foggy Bottom, the first memo sent under this office is out, so it’s not a secret anymore (bland, routine memo with A Message From Deputy Under Secretary for Management Regarding Planning for a Potential Lapse in Appropriations). And our inbox lighted up from folks with “Whoa, did you see this?” or “State has a Deputy M? or “When was the last time the State Department had a Deputy Under Secretary for Management?”
Whoa, indeed! Not since 1978, my dears.
What we want to know is if Congress is okay with this given that it purposely killed this position when it created the permanent”M” by legislation decades ago.
Trump’s nominee as the next Under Secretary of State for Management Eric Ueland was nominated last year, renominated earlier this year and was cleared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February. The last Senate-confirmed “M” Patrick Kennedy retired in 2017 in the mass departures of top officials following the arrival of Secretary Tillerson and his aides in Foggy Bottom. If Mr. Ueland’s nomination survives the current churn, he would be wise to seek assistance from Kennedy during his transition. Whether you like Patrick Kennedy or not, he was the longest serving M at State and no one who knows him questions his dedication to the institution. He also made Foggy Bottom run. The new secretary of state cannot focus his attention on the business of diplomacy if his own building and the people in it are in disarray.
In related news —
Stephen Akard, the nominee to be the next Director General of the Foreign Service has now been withdrawn. We are hearing that a career nominee for DGHR is forthcoming but we don’t have a timeframe for when the announcement might happen. We are guessing that the DGHR position could be among the first that will be announced in the next few weeks leading to Secretary-Designate Pompeo’s confirmation hearing.
Although Akard was a former FSO, his nomination as DGHR was fairly unpopular in the career service and even among retirees, and we understand that the State Department leadership, particularly the Deputy Secretary is aware of this. We think that the withdrawal of the Akard nomination and the announcement of a respected career diplomat as the new DGHR nominee could give the new secretary of state and the career service a fresh start without the baggage of bad feelings casting a shadow over Pompeo’s transition as the country’s top diplomat.
And for those not too familiar with State, DGHR is one of the bureaus and offices that report to the Under Secretary of State for Management. We have to point out that when the next DGHR is nominated and confirmed, the Acting DGHR right now would presumably be overseeing the Senate-confirmed DGHR in his capacity as the new Deputy Under Secretary of State for Management.
Oh, lordy! We can’t wait to read all your oral histories!
Deputy Under Secretaries of State for Management
The Department of State by administrative action created the position of Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration, after Congress authorized ten Assistant Secretary of State positions (two of which could be at the Deputy Under Secretary of State level) in the Department of State Organization Act of 1949 (May 26, 1949; P.L. 81-73; 63 Stat. 111). Between 1953 and 1955, the ranking officer in the Department handling administrative matters was the Under Secretary of State for Administration. The Department re-established the position of Deputy Under Secretary for Administration in 1955, after Congress authorized three Deputy Under Secretary positions in the State Department Organization Act of Aug 5, 1955 (P.L. 84-250; 69 Stat. 536). The Department of State by administrative action changed the title of the position to Deputy Under Secretary of State for Management on Jul 12, 1971.
The position of Deputy Under Secretary for Management was discontinued when an Act of Congress of Oct 7, 1978, established the permanent position of Under Secretary of State for Management (P.L. 85-426; 92 Stat. 968).
- John Emil Peurifoy (1949–1950)
- Carlisle Hubbard Humelsine (1950–1953)
- Loy Wesley Henderson (1955)
- Loy Wesley Henderson (1955–1961)
- Roger Warren Jones (1961–1962)
- William Horsley Orrick Jr. (1962–1963)
- William James Crockett (1963–1967)
- Idar D. Rimestad (1967–1969)
- William Butts Macomber Jr. (1969–1973)
- Lewis Dean Brown (1973–1975)
- Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger (1975–1977)
- Richard Menifee Moose (1977)
- Benjamin Huger Read (1977–1978)
Editor’s note: Government and academic investigators continue to probe reports from Cuba that, starting in 2016 and continuing through 2017, U.S. and Canadian diplomats and tourists may have been subjected to a “sonic weapon,” damaging their hearing, causing nausea, speech problems and potentially even mild brain injuries.
Electrical engineering and computer science professors Wenyuan Xu from Zhejiang University and Kevin Fu from the University of Michigan explain their research, which suggests a more likely scenario of sloppy engineering, and what ultrasound frequencies (which can be used to transmit information gathered by listening devices) traveling through the air can – and can’t – do.
1. What is ultrasound useful for?
The most commonly known use for ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves human ears can’t hear – is a medical device used for examining a fetus during pregnancy. But there are plenty of other uses. Many offices have occupancy sensors that use ultrasound to detect movement and keep the lights on when someone is in a space, and off when nobody is around. These sensors operate at frequencies such as 32 kilohertz, far above what the human ear can hear – which is a range from 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz. Other products use ultrasound to deliver targeted sound, for instance allowing a museum to play a recording for visitors in one area of an exhibit without disturbing others nearby. Electronic pest repellents use ultrasound to keep rodents or insects at bay. A similar product can even be used to disperse teenagers; aging tends to reduce people’s ability to hear higher frequency sounds, so a noisemaker can annoy young people without adults even noticing. (This has also let teens create smartphone ringtones their elders can’t hear.)
2. What can go wrong with ultrasound?
Airborne ultrasound is not inherently bad. But things can go wrong. A former colleague of Kevin’s used to hear strange sounds from his hearing aid when in rooms with occupancy sensors, likely because the hearing aid’s electronics improperly converted the ultrasound into audible noises. These noises were annoying, but not harmful. A similar problem tainted one of our students’ research, conducted in a room that, unbeknownst to him, had an ultrasonic room occupancy sensor in the ceiling.
Both ultrasound and human-audible sound can also affect electronics. For instance, one of us has conducted research in which carefully crafted ultrasonic signals secretly activate voice-control systems, even unlocking an iPhone with a silent “Hey Siri” command, and telling it to make a FaceTime call. Sound can also affect the physical world, as when a singer shatters a wine glass. Microelectrical mechanical sensing chips – such as accelerometers used in car airbag systems and smartphones, and gyroscopes in drones – are susceptible to the same interference. Those systems can be attacked with sound, crashing a drone mid-flight, or fooling a smartphone about whether it’s moving.
3. Should people worry about ultrasound causing bodily harm?
It’s well-known that sounds that are too loud can damage people’s ears and hearing. However, there’s little evidence of ultrasound causing bodily harm without prolonged, direct physical contact at high intensity. If you are accidentally subjected to extremely intense ultrasound (such as when holding an ultrasonic arc welder), you could experience an annoyance like a headache or temporary loss of balance. Academics disagree about safe levels of airborne ultrasound. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration warns of potential health risks from audible subharmonic byproducts of ultrasound, more so than the ultrasound itself. Many animals can hear higher frequencies than humans. Dogs can hear higher-pitched whistles, for instance. One of our students noticed that his pet turtles would begin to dance rhythmically when he performed ultrasound experiments!
4. What might have happened in Cuba?
In early 2017, U.S. diplomats in Cuba reported hearing strange metallic sounds, and suffering hearing loss and other neurological harm. Later reports of similar effects came from Canadian diplomats and tourists from both Canada and the U.S. Possible explanations have varied: Some have alleged Cuba used an unknown sonic weapon, while others have blamed “mass hysteria.”
Our research offers a new explanation not previously considered by others: The true cause could have been equipment trying to listen in on the diplomats’ and visitors’ conversations. We were able to use ultrasonic tones to create sounds like those that were described and recorded in Cuba. No single ultrasonic tone would do this, but as with musical combination tones, combining more than one can create audible byproduct sounds, including by accident.
Further, we created a proof-of-concept eavesdropping device that would record audible conversations and transmit the recordings to a nearby surveillance team over an inaudible ultrasonic link. When we placed a second inaudible ultrasonic device in the area, we were able to create interference – technically called “intermodulation distortion” – between the two signals that made similar sounds to those recorded in Cuba. We were even able to control the volume of the audible sounds by varying the strength of the ultrasonic signals. Without additional evidence, our research does not identify what actually happened in Cuba, but it provides a plausible explanation for what might have happened, even if the eavesdroppers were not trying to harm people.
Posted: 1:35 am ET
Via DOC’s National Travel & Tourism Office (NTTO):
Note that the NTTO’s main source of I-94 arrivals data is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) who releases the I-94 arrivals data to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s NTTO for a its count of all travelers entering the United States. The data reports also integrate the volume of inbound International visitors to the United States from residents of other countries using three U.S. and International government sources: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection I-94 arrivals program data, Statistics Canada’s International Travel Survey and Banco de Mexico travel data.
The preliminary data indicates a -3.6 percent decrease in overall total of arrivals in year-to-date reported at the end of the 3rd quarter in August 2017. Also a higher year-to-date dip at -6.0 percent in total overseas arrival (excluding Canada and Mexico), a -7.6 percent dip in year-to-date arrival from Mexico, and a -2.1 percent dip in year-to-date arrivals from Europe. Year-to-date arrivals from Canada is up at 4.5 percent, slightly higher than the 3.8 percent at the end of the 3rd quarter but a tad lower than the 4.6 percent in the 2nd quarter.
Posted: 12:39 am ET
The University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Brain Injury and Repair was selected to coordinate the evaluation, treatment and rehabilitation of 21 government personnel (11 women and 10 men) identified by the State Department and evaluated an average of 203 days following exposure to reported sound (described as “buzzing,” “grinding metal,” “piercing squeals” or “humming”) and sensory phenomena (described as pressure-like or vibrating and likened to air “baffling” inside a moving car with the windows partially rolled down) at the US Embassy in Havana, Cuba in late 2016.
“Of the 21 individuals assessed at Penn, 17 reported cognitive or behavioral problems such as difficulty remembering, concentrating, or both. “It’s not that any patient can’t do a given task, but it requires way more effort,” said coauthor Randel Swanson, DO, PhD, a brain injury rehabilitation specialist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Brain Injury and Repair. “They don’t have as much cognitive reserve.”
The author and his coauthors signed a nondisclosure agreement with the State Department, “so they cannot discuss whether they know more about what happened in Havana than has already been made public.”
The study concludes that “The unique circumstances of these patients and the clinical manifestations detailed in this report raise concern about a new mechanism for possible acquired brain injury from an exposure of unknown origin.”
Take a closer look at the study focused on neurological symptoms among U.S. diplomats in Cuba with @LVHN's Steven L. Lewis, MD and our own Christopher C. Muth, MD: https://t.co/oz8fmw2Cju #Neurology pic.twitter.com/SB3nL7mspe
— JAMA (@JAMA_current) February 15, 2018
Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cubahttps://t.co/VQwbzJN15D
— Diplopundit (@Diplopundit) February 16, 2018
The mystery of the Cuban diplomatic malaise endures. Neurologists see concussion-like symptoms but can’t pin down a cause. https://t.co/Nx8th4NqwB
— Carl Zimmer (@carlzimmer) February 15, 2018
— diplomattitude (@diplomattitude) February 15, 2018
— Live Science (@LiveScience) February 15, 2018
Posted: 3:29 am ET
On January 10, the State Department issued solicitation #19AQMM18Q0014 for radiation dosimeters. The small business set-aside firm-fixed price contract is for a base year minimum order quantity/quarter of 450 units, and a maximum order quantity/quarter of 475 units, with four option years of the same minimum/maximum requirements. So 1900 units for the base year or 9500 units total in five years. The order is solicited on behalf of Diplomatic Security’s Office of Security Technology (DS/C/ST):
The Government requies a wearable device that records exposure to ionizing radiation that does not contain electronic equipment. It is anticipated that the device will be returned to the vendor for reading and reporting back to the Government the amount of radiation exposure recorded on the device (see Radiation Survey Results Report for more information on the reporting deliverable).
The anticipated order quantity is up to 475 devices. The anticipated ordering frequency is quarterly. No less than 450 devices will be ordered per quarter.
Delivery of the device is required 30 days from award of the BPA call to the X-Ray Program Manager (to be identified upon BPA award).
Radiation Survey Results Report: Radiation survey results reports are to be delivered to the X-Ray Program Manager (to be identified upon BPA award) within 30 days of receipt of returned device for those devices with a reading of over 50 milliRem (mR). Electronic copies of the report will be accepted, and is preferred, and electronic archiving options are also acceptable and preferred.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did a survey on radiation dosimeters back in 2015 and established the System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Program to assist emergency responders making procurement decisions. Here is what it says about dosimeters:
Dosimeters are radiation safety devices worn to quantify an individual’s accumulated radiation dose incurred from external sources to evaluate the potential for harmful health effects of radiation. Dosimeters differ from other radiation detection devices that are designed for the purpose of preventing a radiological release by alerting a responder to the presence of radiation.
It appears from the State Department solicitation description that they are looking for processed dosimeters (and not self-reading dosimeters or electronic personal dosimeters, the latter generally the most expensive, largest in size, and most have visual, auditory, or vibratory alarms). Below is what DHS says about processed dosimeters:
Processed dosimeters are based on thermoluminescence (TL), optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), or direct-ion storage (DIS) technologies. Thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) and OSL materials contain defects in their crystal structure that trap electrons released by exposure to radiation. In TLDs, the trapped electrons are subsequently freed by stimulation with heat, while OSL uses stimulation with light. In both types, after stimulation, the resulting light emission provides a measure of the radiation dose received. Specialized equipment is used for this readout, either by the user with field-portable or lab-based equipment, or by a dosimetry processing laboratory. A commercial dosimetry service can be contracted to supply dosimeters on a regular basis, read out returned dosimeters, and provide dose tracking and record keeping. TLDs and OSL dosimeters are offered in either a clip-on brooch format or identification card style. DIS devices use an analog memory cell inside a small, gas-filled, ionization chamber. Incident radiation causes ionizations in the chamber wall and in the gas, and the charge is stored for subsequent readout. The DIS dosimeter is read at the user’s site through connection to a web-based system via a universal serial bus (USB) port or Bluetooth connection to a computer or smart phone. The DIS dosimeter is designed to clip to a breast pocket. Processed dosimeters are also considered passive devices in that they do not have an on/off switch, though DIS devices do contain a small inaccessible battery to maintain their charge or for communications. Processed dosimeters are widely used in health and safety programs for radiation workers such as nuclear
The purpose of a dosimeter is for worker protection. The potential hazardous effects of radiation depend on the radiation level. For very high doses (hundreds of R), the effects are immediate (“acute”) such as blood and skin damage or infertility, and the severity of the effect increases with dose.4 For lower radiation levels, the effects are not immediately life threatening; the long term accumulated dose is of interest because the probability (but not the severity) of effects such as cancer increase with dose.
Radiation dosimeters are routinely used in occupational radiation environments in the nuclear industry and at medical facilities. In contrast, except for some hazardous material response teams, most emergency responders do not routinely use radiation dosimeters. Responders may need dosimeters in the event of a radiological release such as a terrorist attack involving a radiological dispersal devise or an improvised nuclear device. Since emergency response scenarios span a wide range of potential radiation levels that could be initially unknown, many factors must be considered in the selection of a radiation dosimeter.
The State Department solicitation notes that the Radiation Survey Results Report are to be delivered to the X-Ray Program Manager within 30 days of receipt of returned device for those devices with a reading of over 50 milliRem (mR). More from DHS’s market survey report:
One of the most important factors influencing selection of radiation dosimeters is the magnitude of radiation levels that an instrument can measure – for example, a very sensitive device with a low minimum range is useful for alerting users to the presence of radiation but may go off-scale and not function in a high radiation field. The operational range of a dosimeter will determine how it can be used during the response, and several guidance documents provide reference values that help define what ranges are applicable. For example, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) defined radiation control zone perimeters for emergency response to nuclear and radiological terrorism, where the “cold zone” is the area where the exposure rate is less than or equal to 10 mR/h, the “hot zone” is an area with exposure rate greater than 10 mR/h, and the “dangerous-radiation zone” is at 10 R/h and higher. Accumulated dose guidelines have also been developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NCRP to guide tactical emergency response decisions, such as 10 rem for property protection operations and 25 rem and higher to conduct lifesaving missions, 5 or 50 rad to decide whether to withdraw from a radiation area.
The ability to alarm or display instant results may be an important feature to consider in relation to the magnitude of radiation levels. For example, in a dangerous radiation field, a high range electronic device that can measure exposure rates with a real-time display and alarms could help a responder avoid potentially life threatening doses. In a lower radiation field, self-reading and field-readable processed dosimeters could be used to provide near real-time information. In both types of fields and during intermediate and late phase recovery operations, processed personal dosimeters could be used for later verification of field instrument readings and to track accumulated dose for long term health.
Posted: 1:55 am ET
We just stumbled into a December 12, 2017 announcement on the Federal Register about a “New System of Records” signed by Mary R. Avery, the Senior Agency Official for Privacy in the Office of Global Information Services of the State Department’s Bureau of Administration. The notice says that the “purpose of the Email Archive Management Records system is to capture all emails and attachments that interact with a Department of State email account and to store them in a secure repository that allows for search, retrieval, and view when necessary.”
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this system of records takes effect upon publication, with the exception of the routine uses that are subject to a 30-day period during which interested persons may submit comments to the Department.
The individuals covered by this new system? All State Department folks with state.gov emails, including people with interactions to those state.gov accounts, or mentioned in those email accounts:
“Individuals who maintain a Department of State email account that is archived in the system. The system may also include information about individuals who interact with a Department of State email account, as well as individuals who are mentioned in a Department of State email message or attachment.”
“The records in this system include email messages and attachments associated with a Department of State email account, including any information that may be included in such messages or attachments. The system may also include biographic and contact information of individuals who maintain a Department of State email account, including name, address, email address, and phone number.”
The location of this new system is reportedly at the State Department or annexes and post overseas but also that information “may also be stored within a government-certified cloud, implemented, and overseen by the Department’s Messaging Systems Office (MSO.”
Does anyone know if this new system is managed by a specific contractor or contractors, and if so, which one/s?
Note that the new system does not just capture “record” emails for federal record purposes, but “all” emails. The hunt for leakers starts here? Although if you read carefully item #f below, it looks like emails will also be shared and screened for potential insider attacks, not just on networks, but for “for terrorist screening, threat-protection and other homeland security purposes.”
And item #h… oh, my … for people with planned or ongoing litigations! It has always been said that employees should have no expectation of privacy when using government systems; this new system clarifies it for everyone on how the State Department intends to use and share information in its email system.
Information in this new system may be shared with the following:
(a) Other federal agencies, foreign governments, and private entities where relevant and necessary for them to review or consult on documents that implicate their equities;
(b) a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
(c) appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department of State suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department of State has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department of State (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department of State efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(d) another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of State determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(e) an agency, whether federal, state, local or foreign, where a record indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, so that the recipient agency can fulfill its responsibility to investigate or prosecute such violation or enforce or implement the statute, rule, regulation, or order.
(f) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), or other appropriate federal agencies, for the integration and use of such information to protect against terrorism, if that record is about one or more individuals known, or suspected, to be or to have been involved in activities constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism. Such information may be further disseminated by recipient agencies to Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign government authorities, and to support private sector processes as contemplated in Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6 and other relevant laws and directives, for terrorist screening, threat-protection and other homeland security purposes.
(g) a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.
(h) a court, adjudicative body, or administrative body before which the Department is authorized to appear when (a) the Department; (b) any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) or the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the Government of the United States, when the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department is deemed to be relevant and necessary to the litigation or administrative proceeding.
(i) the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for its use in providing legal advice to the Department or in representing the Department in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Department is authorized to appear, where the Department deems DOJ’s use of such information relevant and necessary to the litigation, and such proceeding names as a party or interests:
(a) The Department or any component of it;
(b) Any employee of the Department in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The Government of the United States, where the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(j) the National Archives and Records Administration and the General Services Administration: For records management inspections, surveys and studies; following transfer to a Federal records center for storage; and to determine whether such records have sufficient historical or other value to warrant accessioning into the National Archives of the United States.
Posted: 1:10 am ET
Looks like the thinking is no longer that a “sonic weapon” hurt diplomats in Cuba https://t.co/BgNMiG2SJv
— Miriam Elder (@MiriamElder) December 6, 2017
Chirps, hums and phantom noises — how bizarre events in Cuba changed embassy workers’ brains https://t.co/PZjqYsdFvf
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) December 7, 2017
AND NOW THIS —
Was a spy’s Parkinson’s disease caused by a secret microwave weapon attack? https://t.co/qo4T0EChmf
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) December 6, 2017