U.S. removes Cuba from list of terrorism-supporting states

U.S. removes Cuba from list of terrorism-supporting states

Published 1 June 2015

 

The United States on Friday officially removed Cuba from the list of terrorism-supporting states. The move is the latest step toward the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. Removing Cuba from the list – which now has only three countries left on it: Iran, Syria, and Sudan – removes a major legal obstacles, because U.S. law imposes serious restrictions on political and economic relations with countries on the list. Still, the removal of Cuba from the terrorism-supporting countries list would have a limited impact, because many of the limitations on normal economic relations with Cuba are the result of Cuba-specific embargo legislation by Congress outside the scope of the terrorism-related measures. These pieces of legislation will have to be removed by Congressional action. The administration’s decision to remove Cuba from the list comes while the negotiations between the two countries are encountering difficulties. Officials have so far failed to reach an agreement on re-establishing diplomatic relations and opening embassies.

The United States on Friday officially removed Cuba from the list of terrorism-supporting states. The move is the latest step toward the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba.
Removing Cuba from the list – which now has only three countries left on it: Iran, Syria, and Sudan – removes a major legal obstacles, because U.S. law imposes serious restrictions on political and economic relations with countries on the list.
Still, the removal of Cuba from the terrorism-supporting countries list would have a limited impact, because many of the limitations on normal economic relations with Cuba are the result of Cuba-specific embargo legislation by Congress outside the scope of the terrorism-related measures. These pieces of legislation will have to be removed by Congressional action.
A U.S, official told Reuters that removing Cuba from the terrorism list is “an important step,” but that “as a practical matter, most restrictions related to exports and foreign aid will remain due to the comprehensive trade and arms embargo.”

Russia distancing itself from a weakening Assad

Russia distancing itself from a weakening Assad

Published 1 June 2015

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on emailShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on linkedin

Middle East analysts and reliable sources within several governments and intelligence services in the region say that there are growing signs of major shift in Russia’s position toward the regime of Bashar al-Assad, reflecting the conclusion among close advisers to President Vladimir Putin that the Assad regime, which has suffered a series of painful defeats since January, cannot be saved, and that continued Russian support for it would undermine other objectives Russia is pursuing in the region. These sources told the London-based Arabic-language newspaperAsharq Al-Awsat that the Russia policy change could be described as a “dramatic U-turn,” with Moscow no longer hiding the fact that it is contemplating a “future without Assad” for Syria. Russia has withdrawn more than 100 military advisers, technical support professionals, and diplomats from Syria, and has cut down the number of employees at its embassy in Damascus, leaving only essential staff. Since late February, Russia no longer ships military supplies to the Syrian military, and Russian military technical personnel has been pulled out of Syria, making it impossible for Russia to abide by the maintenance contracts with Syria for the Sukhoi aircraft, the mainstay of the Syria air force. There have been increasing signs that the Assad regime is disintegrating, with Assad family members and relatives, and businessmen and high-ranking members of the Alawite community, fleeing Damascus.

Middle East analysts and reliable sources within several governments and intelligence services in the region say that there are growing signs of major shift in Russia’s position toward the regime of Bashar al-Assad, reflecting the conclusion among close advisers to President Vladimir Putin that the Assad regime, which has suffered a series of painful defeats since January, cannot be saved, and that continued Russian support for it would undermine other objectives Russia is pursuing in the region.
These sources told the London-based Arabic-language newspaperAsharq Al-Awsat that the Russia policy change could be described as a “dramatic U-turn,” with Moscow no longer hiding the fact that it is contemplating a “future without Assad” for Syria.
Russia and Iran have been the staunchest supporters of the Assad regime, but the sources say that in addition to public comments by Russian officials, there have been other, more substantive changes in Russia’s stance toward the Syrian regime, indicating a major shift in Russia’s regional strategy.
Western diplomatic sources, who spoke with Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper that in a recent closed-door meeting of high-level European security officials which was convened to discuss ways to tackle to growing threat of trans-border terrorism, the Russian delegation was asked about Moscow’s view of the possibility of a Syria “after Assad.”
The leading Russian representative said that “what concerns Russia is to safeguard its strategic interests and secure the future of minorities” in Syria, as well as ensuring the country remained united.
The sources said that the Russian representative left a clear impression with the participants in the meeting — who are familiar with the Russian position on Syria since they have been dealing with the issue for four years now – that Russia was no longer concerned with the Assad regime itself, and that the fate of the regime and the role Assad should or should not play after a negotiated end to the civil war, was of no interest to Russia. The conference participants “were shocked by the admission, which would represent the first of its kind from a Russian official,” Asharq Al-Awsat reports.
Russians leave Syria
The newspaper reported on Saturday that Syrian opposition sources noted that over the past three weeks, Russia has withdrawn more than 100 military advisers, technical support professionals, and diplomats and flew them back to Moscow from the Latakia airport.
Most of those withdrawn from Syria worked along Iranian military officers in a Damascus operations center in support of the Syrian military and security agencies.
Informed sources inside Syria also said that Russia has pulled military technical personnel out of Syria, making it impossible for Russia to abide by the maintenance contracts with Syria for the Sukhoi aircraft, the mainstay of the Syria air force. The Syrian regime has failed to persuade Russia to continue to perform maintenance work on the advanced jets, prompting a rare visit to Tehran last month by Syrian defense minister Fahd Jassem al-Freij, who pleaded with Iranian defense officials to intervene with Russia on this matter.
In the last three months Russia has also cut down the number of employees at its embassy in Damascus, leaving only essential staff.
Assad’s deteriorating military, economic situation
It also appears that Russia has stopped providing military supplies to the beleaguered Syria military. The Russians and Iranians have used the Hama airport to fly military transport planes to the Syrian military, but since late February, no Russian transport planes have landed at the airport, only planes from Iran.
In addition to the Russians pulling their military advisers out of the country; stopping military supplies to the regime’s forces; and ending maintenance work on advanced systems, Assad is facing another major difficulty: many of the Syrian army’s brigades are no longer battle-ready. Despite Hezbollah’s considerable aid, and the fact that the regime’s retreat in many regions means that Assad now has to protect a much smaller areas, he is unable to deploy a reasonable number of units to the various fronts on which he is being attacked, leading to more defeats and further demoralization.
Israeli analysts say that the president’s first priority now appears to be maintaining the Alawite enclave in the north, and that control of Damascus comes only second. With his back to the wall, according to Israeli assessments, the Syrian ruler might even give up his capital and focus on defending the Alawite area and some of the crossings into Lebanon.
The series of military defeats Assad forces and Hezbollah militia have suffered since January is not the only reason for the rapidly deteriorating position of the regime. The other reason is the fact that the regimes is running out of money. The Turkish news agency Anatolia reported late last week that after four years of war, the Assad regime controls less than 8 percent of the country’s oil and gas fields, while Islamic State controls more than 80 percent. About 10-12 percent of Syria’s oil and gas resources are in areas under the control of moderate rebel forces. Syria has no other way to earn foreign currency except to export of oil and gas.
The Assad regime is completely dependent on Iranian military and financial aid, and on Russian military supplies given to it on credit. With Russia no longer providing military support, and with Russians technicians who did maintenance work on Russian-made weapon systems having left Syria, the regime’s ability to hold on to power is severely constrained.
Regime disintegration
Ynet reports that in recent days there have been increasing signs that the Assad regime is disintegrating, four years into the civil war that has engulfed Syria. Last Thursday, Russia confirmed that an Ilyushin II-76 aircraft took sixty-six high-level Syrian nationals from Latakia to Moscow airport, as well as a number of citizens from other countries.
Members of Assad’s family have also begun to leave Syria. Assad’s mother, Anisa Makhlouf, has left Syria six weeks ago to join her brother – Assad’s uncle — in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, where he oversees the vast fortune the Assads have smuggled out of Syria during the past decade and deposited in Belarussian banks. Before she left Syria, Makhlouf is reported to have smuggled huge sums of money – her share of the Assad family’s fortune — out of the country. A week later Assad’s sister left Damascus, met their mother in Belarus, and both flew to Dubai, where the Assads own a secluded estate.
There have been increasing reports of other Assad relatives, businessmen, and high-ranking members of the Alawite community fleeing Damascus for the coastal city of Latakia, or other countries, after transferring large sums of money to banks in Lebanon, Belarus – a favorite destination of rich Syrians’ money— and the United Arab Emirates.
U.S. and Russia discuss post-Assad Syria
Knowledgeable sources in the Gulf told Asharq Al-Awsat that the shift in Russia’s policies in Syria is not only the result of Assad’s deteriorating military situation, but also of commercial and political opportunities Russia seeks in Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar – countries which are among the most adamant opponents of the Assad regime.
Riyadh Tabara, Lebanon’s former ambassador to the United States, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the apparent shift in Russia’s Syria policy is a result of the situation in Syria becoming “out of control” and the gains made during the past year by extremist groups in the country.
Tabara said Moscow and Washington have recently both been discussing a political solution in Syria without Assad’s involvement.
“Moscow will be willing to concede [to a future without Assad] but only after receiving guarantees that the regime that will replace Assad’s will safeguard its interests in the country,” he said.
There have been growing reports in the Arab media that the discussions between the United States and Russia over an agreement to end the Syrian war have grown more serious and more concrete. The Lebanese newspaper Al-Nahar on Sunday quoted diplomatic sources in Geneva as saying that the United States and Russia are seeking an arrangement which will take into account the interests of regional and international parties, in particular Turkey, Iran, and the Gulf states.
Last Thursday, senior diplomatic sources told the Egyptian paper Al-Hayat that there has been a noticeable change in the Russian position toward Syria, and that Moscow for the first time is willing to discuss with the United States the exact details of a transition period for the country. The paper quotes informed sources to say that the discussions even included the names of individual military and political officials to oversee the transition of Syria to its post-Assad phase.
Haaretz quotes a senior member of the Syrian opposition who said the emerging situation may enable another international summit on Syria, like the one held in Geneva in 2014. “Both the regime and the national opposition could make use of this situation to reach a principled decision to convene an international conference to bring about a transition government and preserve the state institutions,” said the source. “We don’t need to repeat what has happened in Iraq, with the destruction of state institutions including the army, and then have to start everything anew without success.”

Broad NSA surveillance powers, granted in 2006, expired on midnight

Broad NSA surveillance powers, granted in 2006, expired on midnight

Published 1 June 2015

 

The NSA’s broad domestic surveillance authority, granted to the agency when the Patriot Act was first reauthorized in 2006, expired on midnight after the Senate failed to extend Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which governs surveillance, or approve the House’s USA Freedom Act, which modified Section 215. The Senate did vote, 77-17, to take up the House bill on Tuesday. The failure of the Senate to do extend or modify the NSA’s surveillance power was the result of the unyielding position of Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), and also the result of a miscalculation by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the majority leader, who believed that the prospect of the expiration of Section 215 would lead opponent of the surveillance programs, supporters of the current program, and supporters of the House’s USA Freedom Act to agree to a few weeks extension of Section 215 to allow for more negotiations among senators and between senators and House member. The Senate did vote, 77-17, to take up the House bill on Tuesday. It remains to be seen, however, how many, and what type, of amendments McConnell would allow to be brought to the floor, and, if some of these amendments are approved, whether House members would agree to any modifications to the USA Freedom Act.

The NSA’s broad domestic surveillance authority, granted to the agency when the Patriot Act was first reauthorized in 2006, expired on midnight after the Senate failed to extend Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which governs surveillance, or approve the House’s USA Freedom Act, which modified Section 215.
The Senate did vote, 77-17, to take up the House bill on Tuesday.
The failure of the Senate to do extend or modify the NSA’s surveillance power was the result of the unyielding position of Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), who upset many fellow Republicans – some of whom even charged that his position makes him unsuitable to be the commander in chief (Rand is a declared candidate for the Republican nomination for president).
The New York Times notes that the failure of the Senate is also the result of a miscalculation by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the majority leader, who believed that the prospect of the expiration of Section 215 would lead opponent of the surveillance programs (like Senators Paul and Ron Wyden [D-Oregon]), supporters of the current program (most Republican senators, led by John McCain [Arizona], John Cornyn [Texas], and Lindsey Graham [South Carolina], joined by Senator Angus King [I-Maine]), and supporters of the House’s USA Freedom Act (most Democrats]) to agree to a few weeks extension of Section 215 to allow for more negotiations among senators and between senators and House member.
McConnell and other supporters of the current NSA data collection program admitted that even though they consider these programs essential to U.S. national security and an important weapon in the war against terrorism, there would now be no escape from substantial reforms which would restrict such data collection and storage.
On the other side, even the most ardent critics of the NSA surveillance programs admitted that though emboldened by the Edward Snowden revelations, their cause – limiting the ability of the NSA to collect mass amounts of data in order better to connect the dots once a suspicion ag
Very few support Paul’s purist libertarian approach, but although many more in the Senate support the hawkish approach to surveillance collection, they now admit that there are just not enough of them. This means that the compromise House bill – the USA Freedom Act – which limits the ability of the NSA to collect data and store it, is now likely to pass the Senate mid-week.
It remains to be seen, however, how many, and what type, of amendments McConnell would allow to be brought to the floor, and, if some of these amendments are approved, whether House members would agree to any modifications to the USA Freedom Act.
The Patriot Act was passed in 2001, but as the Guardian reports, the USA Freedom Act, if passed, will be the first rollback of NSA surveillance since the seminal 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Since Section 215 is now dead, and since the USA Freedom Act has not yet been passed into law, the FBI is not authorized to use powers granted under the Patriot Act, including the pursuit of so-called “business records” relating to Internet use, hotel and rental car records, and credit card statements.
“This is the only realistic way forward,” McConnell acknowledged on Sunday, just hours before the Patriot Act was set to expire. The Senate then voted 77 to 17 to open a debate on Tuesday on the USA Freedom Act. The same procedural move failed by three votes on Saturday ten days ago, because Senate Republicans were unwilling to accept the modification to surveillance entailed by the USA Freedom Act.
The White House and the U.S. intelligence community support the USA Freedom Act – the latter somewhat grudgingly, it should be noted – and the White House was quick to welcome the Senate vote.
“The Senate took an important — if late — step forward tonight,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement. “We call on the Senate to ensure this irresponsible lapse in authorities is as short-lived as possible.”
The Washington Post reports that after the procedural vote in the Senate, Paul conceded that the House bill, to which he objects, will now pass, although he appeared willing to drag it out as a long as possible. “Tonight begins the process of ending bulk collection,” he said.
“I am not going to take it any more and I believe the American people are not going to take it any more,” Paul said on the Senate floor.
McConnell tried to move for a temporary extension of the less controversial components of the Patriot Act, components such as “lone-wolf” and “roving wiretap” capabilities which have nothing to do with bulk metadata collection and which even critics of the more expansive Section 215 admit are useful law enforcement and intelligent tools.
Paul, however, opposed even the temporary extension of these powers, and he threatened to block any attempt to extend them by using his right as a Senator to seek unanimous consent.
Paul’s tactics led to angry criticism from establishment Republicans, including a heated exchange with John McCain, who accused Paul of endangering national security to boost his presidential campaign. McCain said Sunday that Paul “obviously has a higher priority on his fundraising and political ambitions than securing the nation.”
Paul responded angrily, charging that his Republican opponents were rooting for a terrorist attack to embarrass him.
“Some of them I think secretly want an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me,” he said.
When Congress passed Section 215v in 2001, it imposed a “sunset” rule which would require the reauthorization of the act every five years. In 2006, however, when bulk collection powers for the NSA were added to Section 215, it became shrouded in such extensive secrecy that reauthorization became routine.
Thus, in 2011, when the Patriot Act was last reauthorized, it passed 72-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House.
Between 2011 and Sunday, Edward Snowden made his revelations.
“No doubt it played a role,” Senator Dean Heller (R-Nevada) told the Guardian. “I think it played the same role for me as it did for most of the American people, who were surprised and stunned that the government had this sort of access to this kind of data.”ainst an individual is developed – has advanced further and faster than they had believed.

Bomb squads compete at Sandia Labs’ Robot Rodeo

Bomb squads compete at Sandia Labs’ Robot Rodeo

Published 15 May 2015

 

Robots are life-saving tools for the nation’s hazardous device teams, providing a buffer between danger and first responders. Beginning this past Monday, Sandia Lab hosted its ninth annual Western National Robot Rodeo and Capability Exercise at Sandia National Laboratories. The five-day event – 11-15 May — offers a challenging platform for civilian and military bomb squad teams to practice defusing dangerous situations with robots’ help. 

Bomb squads from across the country saddled up their robots have been duking it out at the ninth annual Western National Robot Rodeo and Capability Exercise at Sandia National Laboratories. The five-day event – 11-15 May — offers a challenging platform for civilian and military bomb squad teams to practice defusing dangerous situations with robots’ help.
A Sandia Lab release reports that the rodeo, which began Monday, is designed with elaborate props to model the atmosphere of real-life emergencies in a low-risk, competitive environment. Robots are life-saving tools for the nation’s hazardous device teams, providing a buffer between danger and first responders.
“Our underlying goal is that we want to make good robot operators into great robot operators,” said Jake Deuel, a Robot Rodeo coordinator and Sandia manager. “We design problems and scenarios that take our state and local bomb squad teams way outside their comfort zones, outside the known techniques and procedures to see how they can handle it.”
UAVs introduced at Robot Rodeo
Sandia notes that this year, Sandia is introducing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into the competition. Sandia’s David Novick, a pilot and robotics engineer, flew the UAVs at the event.
“It’s exciting to be able to show off a new technology to this group,” Novick said. “This technology is a game changer. It’s a stable, highly intelligent vehicle with controls similar to an airplane. Emergency responders can use these small, portable vehicles to get a bird’s eye view of a situation to help them get out of a tight spot.”
Scenarios at the rodeo change every year and grow in difficulty, which brings competitors back. The event prepares officers for the types of situations they may face on the job.
“The only time we get to simulate the level of complexity that we face in real life is at the Robot Rodeo,” said Albuquerque Police Sgt. Carlos Gallegos. “Robots are saving officers’ lives and have been critical to our SWAT teams.”
Past events in the competition have included managing suicide bombers, operating in smoke-filled buildings, responding to roadside bombs, rescuing first responders and removing bombs from inside an aircraft.
Sandia partners with Los Alamos National Laboratory on the annual event, which lets nine teams practice emergency scenarios where robots are life-saving tools.
Teams participating this year include the Albuquerque Police Department, Kirtland Air Force Base Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team, Holloman Air Force Base Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team, Los Alamos Police Department, Doña Ana County Sherriff’s Office, Riverside County Sheriff’s Office from California, two U.S. Army Teams from Fort Carson, Colorado, and a team from the British army.

Researchers hack a teleoperated surgical robot, revealing security flaws

Researchers hack a teleoperated surgical robot, revealing security flaws

Published 15 May 2015

Real-world teleoperated robots, which are controlled by a human who may be in another physical location, are expected to become more commonplace as the technology evolves. They are ideal for situations which are dangerous for people: fighting fires in chemical plants, diffusing explosive devices or extricating earthquake victims from collapsed buildings. Researchers conducted a series of experiments in which they hacked a next generation teleoperated surgical robot — one used only for research purposes — to test how easily a malicious attack could hijack remotely controlled operations in the future and to make those systems more secure.

To make cars as safe as possible, we crash them into walls to pinpoint weaknesses and better protect people who use them.
This is the idea behind a series of experiments conducted by a University of Washington engineering team who hacked a next generation teleoperated surgical robot — one used only for research purposes — to test how easily a malicious attack could hijack remotely controlled operations in the future and to make those systems more secure.
Real-world teleoperated robots, which are controlled by a human who may be in another physical location, are expected to become more commonplace as the technology evolves. They are ideal for situations which are dangerous for people: fighting fires in chemical plants, diffusing explosive devices or extricating earthquake victims from collapsed buildings.
Outside of a handful of experimental surgeries conducted remotely, doctors typically use surgical robots today to operate on a patient in the same room using a secure, hardwired connection. But telerobots may one day routinely provide medical treatment in underdeveloped rural areas, battlefield scenarios, Ebola wards or catastrophic disasters happening half a world away.
A UW release reports that in two recent papers, UW BioRobotics Lab researchers demonstrated that next generation teleoperated robots using nonprivate networks — which may be the only option in disasters or in remote locations — can be easily disrupted or derailed by common forms of cyberattacks. Incorporating security measures to foil those attacks, the authors argue, will be critical to their safe adoption and use.
“We want to make the next generation of telerobots resilient to some of the threats we’ve detected without putting an operator or patient or any other person in the physical world in danger,” said lead author Tamara Bonaci, a UW doctoral candidate in electrical engineering.
To expose vulnerabilities, the UW team mounted common types of cyberattacks as study participants used a teleoperated surgical robot developed at the UW for research purposes to move rubber blocks between pegs on a pegboard.
By mounting “man in the middle” attacks, which alter the commands flowing between the operator and robot, the team was able to maliciously disrupt a wide range of the robot’s functions — making it hard to grasp objects with the robot’s arms — and even to completely override command inputs. During denial-of-service attacks, in which the attacking machine flooded the system with useless data, the robots became jerky and harder to use.
In some cases, the human operators were eventually able to compensate for those disruptions, given the relatively simple task of moving blocks. In situations where precise movements can mean the difference between life and death — such as surgery or a search and rescue extrication — these types of cyberattacks could have more serious consequences, the researchers believe.
With a single packet of bad data, for instance, the team was able to maliciously trigger the robot’s emergency stop mechanism, rendering it useless.
The tests were conducted with the Raven II, an open source teleoperated robotic system developed by UW electrical engineering professor Blake Hannaford and former UW professor Jacob Rosen, along with their students. Raven II, currently manufactured and sold by Seattle-based Applied Dexterity Inc., a UW spin-out, is a next generation teleoperated robotic system designed to support research in advanced techniques of robotic-assisted surgery. The system is not currently in clinical use and is not approved by the FDA.
The surgical robots that are FDA-approved for clinical use today, which typically allow a surgeon to remove tumors, repair heart valves or perform other procedures in a less invasive way, use a different communication channel and typically do not rely on publicly available networks, which would make the cyberattacks the UW team tested much harder to mount.
But if teleoperated robots will be used in locations with no secure alternative to networks or other communication channels that are easy to hack, it’s important to begin designing and incorporating additional security features now, the researchers argue.
“If there’s been a disaster, the network has probably been damaged too. So you might have to fly a drone and put a router on it and send signals up to it,” said Howard Chizeck, UW professor of electrical engineering and co-director of the UW BioRobotics Lab.
“In an ideal world, you’d always have a private network and everything could be controlled, but that’s not always going to be the case. We need to design for and test additional security measures now, before the next generation of telerobots are deployed.”
Encrypting data packets that flow between the robot and human operator would help prevent certain types of cyberattacks. But it is not effective against denial-of-service attacks that bog down the system with extraneous data. With video, encryption also runs the risk of causing unacceptable delays in delicate operations.
The release notes that the UW team is also developing the concept of “operator signatures,” which leverage the ways in which a particular surgeon or other teleoperator interacts with a robot to create a unique biometric signature.
By tracking the forces and torques that a particular operator applies to the console instruments and his or her interactions with the robot’s tools, the researchers have developed a novel way to validate that person’s identity and authenticate that the operator is the person he or she claims to be.
Moreover, monitoring those actions and reactions during a telerobotic procedure could give early warning that someone else has hijacked that process.
“Just as everyone signs something a little bit differently and you can identify people from the way they write different letters, different surgeons move the robotic system differently,” Chizeck said. “This would allow us to detect and raise the alarm if all of a sudden someone who doesn’t seem to be operator A is maliciously controlling or interfering with the procedure.”
Co-authors on the three telerobotic security papers include UW electrical engineering graduate students Junjie Yan and Jeffrey Herron, Tadayoshi Kohno of the UW computer science and engineering department, former UW computer science and engineering undergraduate Tariq Yusuf, Ryan Calo of the UW School of Law, and law student Aaron Alva.

U.K. high-tech industry wants more skilled immigrants to be allowed into Britain

U.K. high-tech industry wants more skilled immigrants to be allowed into Britain

Published 15 May 2015

 

The British tech industry is pushing for immigration reform that will help startups reach up to 500 million European Union customers and allow U.K. firms to attract a global talent pool. The tech industry is worth £100 billion to the U.K. economy, but companies are increasingly unable to find sufficient talent to fill vacancies.To help tackle the skills gap, British officials are investing in STEM education with the introduction of a new computing curriculum to schools and a pledge to train 17,500 math and physics teachers in the next five years, but industry insidersstress that immigration must be addressed if the U.K. tech and start-up scene is ever going to develop a firm the size of Google or Facebook.

The British tech industry is pushing for immigration reform that will help startups reach up to 500 million European Union customers and allow U.K. firms to attract a global talent pool. “The position on immigration needs to be smart and at the moment you could argue it’s dumb,” said Julian David CEO Julian David of techUK, an industry trade group. “We’re not talking about numbers here, we’re talking about getting the right skills needed to grow the economy, be they plumbers or be they tech entrepreneurs or be they experienced large company people.”
The tech industry is worth £100 billion to the U.K. economy, according to Tech City UK, but companies are increasingly unable to find sufficient talent to fill vacancies. Recruiter Robert Waltersreports that 72 percent of U.K. businesses are affected by a shortage of talent. A recent CompTIA survey showed 44 percent of 1,500 IT workers believe staff productivity is suffering because of the skills gap, with another 26 percent blaming it for a lack of innovation.
According to IT Pro, to help tackle the skills gap, British officials are investing in STEM education with the introduction of a new computing curriculum to schools and a pledge to train 17,500 math and physics teachers in the next five years. David still stresses that immigration must be addressed if the U.K. tech and start-up scene is ever going to develop a firm the size of Google or Facebook. “We need people with experience of growing a company fast, people who know how to do this — (which is) something that’s lacking in the U.K.,” he said. “It’s a good argument for more flexible immigration to attract those skills that exist in the U.S., for instance - we could bring them in here.”
The Home Office offers visas aimed at entrepreneurs, people with “exceptional talent,” and graduate entrepreneurs. Immigrants on an entrepreneur visa can stay in the country for a maximum five years, a graduate entrepreneur visa grants a one year stay, while exceptional talent visa holders may stay up to ten years. Additionally, immigrants seeking an entrepreneur visa must have £50,000 in investment funding. The Home Office has defended its policies and claimed sponsored visa applications for skilled workers rose 14 percent in 2014. Many of these workers were employed in the information and communication, professional, scientific and technical activities, and finance and insurance industries.
Recommendation from the government’s Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to add four IT job roles- senior developers, product managers, network security specialists, and data scientists- to the Shortage Occupation List in February has been accepted by the Home Office.
Another issue that worries the U.K. tech sector is the possibility that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union, as conservative politicians have promised a referendum on European Union membership by 2017. The industry fears such a move would be bad for business, but David argues that “We live in a democracy, it’s up to the government and people to decide if they want a referendum so we’re not arguing with that. If you take the position of the government, which is that they’re looking for reform, then this could be a positive.” Removing the United Kingdom from the European Union, however, would reduce the country’s exposure to a market of up to 500 million people.
“There’s a 500 million-person market right on our doorstep which people don’t take advantage of to grow,” David said. “If you look at the impact of the US market on the ability and speed with which US companies can scale, it doesn’t happen here because the single market doesn’t actually operate at home yet.”

DHS implements new deportation scheme to replace Secure Communities

DHS implements new deportation scheme to replace Secure Communities

Published 15 May 2015

 

After months of working to improve Secure Communities, the Obama administration recently announced the Priority Enforcement Program, under which jails will be asked to notify ICE agents when a deportable immigrant will be released — so agents can be waiting — instead of holding him or her in jail until ICE agents arrive. This new approach is a response to criticism of Secure Communities from local law enforcement units that said the program strained local budgets as jails became overbooked with nonviolent criminals.

Last November, DHS chief Jeh Johnson halted Secure Communities, a federal program meant to focus deportation efforts on immigrants who broke laws after they entered the United States. The program began under the George W. Bush administration to coordinate enforcement of federal immigration laws with local communities. The FBI collects the fingerprints of individuals arrested by local and state police, to identify fugitives or individuals wanted in other jurisdictions. With Secure Communities, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials reviewed the fingerprints against immigration databases to see whether arrested individuals are deportable. Johnson referred to Secure Communities last year saying “its very name has become a symbol for general hostility toward the enforcement of our immigration laws.”
A Baltimore Sun analysis found that more than 40 percent of the immigrants deported from Maryland under Secure Communities had no prior criminal record. This led then-Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley to restrict the state’s cooperation with ICE on immigration detainers- requests that local jails hold illegal immigrants until ICE agents can pick them up. Around 250 jurisdictions now have limited cooperation with ICE’s requests. This has made it difficult for ICE agents to implement Secure Communities. “That was getting to be a bigger and bigger problem in terms of our ability to get at the criminals,” Johnson said last month, saying he was in the midst of a “road show” to sell mayors and governors on the new approach.
“The new enforcement program takes two to dance,” Johnson said.
After months of working to improve Secure Communities, the Obama administration recently announced the Priority Enforcement Program, under which jails will be asked to notify ICE agents when a deportable immigrant will be released — so agents can be waiting — instead of holding him or her in jail until ICE agents arrive. This new approach is a response to criticism of Secure Communities from local law enforcement units that said the program strained local budgets as jails became overbooked with nonviolent criminals.
DHS officials are touring the country to convince local law enforcement agencies to participate in the new program, but they are already facing backlash. “They presented it as a kinder and gentler way for ICE collaborate with local police,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who met last week with ICE Director Sarah Saldana and Alejandro Mayorkas, deputy DHS secretary. “I told them it’s not kinder or gentler enough.”
Chris Newman, Legal Director for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, told the Sun that the root of the problem is that ICE continues to “mine the criminal justice system” to meet deportation targets. As ICE tries to meet those goals, Newman said, the agency will likely deport people convicted of less-serious offenses because many of the most serious criminals are serving long jail terms.
Since last October, local authorities have received 58,500 detainer requests from ICE. Most of the people targeted in those requests have not been convicted of serious crimes or aggravated felonies; according to ICE figures, only 16,384 of them have serious convictions, nearly 14,000 have been convicted only of misdemeanors, and more than 20,746 do not meet ICE’s definition of priority deportation. An agency spokeswoman has said some of the people who have not been convicted of serious crimes, have been accused of them. This, nevertheless, contradicts ICE’s assurance to communities that it aims to target only undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records.