whistleblower – Cincy Link

US Capitol Police whistleblower alleges leadership debacle on Jan. 6

cincylink — Tue, 12 Oct 2021 04:18:02 +0000

Video above: The AP sits down with the new chief of the Capitol PoliceA whistleblower identifying as a former high-ranking U.S. Capitol Police official excoriated the department's leadership before, during and after the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection in a new letter to Congress.The 16-page letter, obtained by CNN and first reported by Politico, claims two Capitol Police officials — assistant chief Yogananda Pittman and acting assistant chief Sean Gallagher — did not share vital intelligence with other police leadership and did not act to help officers once the violence began on Jan. 6, but haven't seen any consequences in the months since. The letter, dated Sept. 28, addresses leaders of the U.S. House and Senate.The whistleblower said they are a former high-ranking officer with more than 30 years of service at the department who worked there at the time of the attack.Some of the allegations in the letter mirror criticism contained in reports from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the inspector general. But the letter takes particular aim at department leadership — and accuses some congressional leaders of having "purposefully failed" to tell the truth about the department's failures.The alleged failures of Pittman and Gallagher, the former department official wrote, have been "marginalized, negligibly investigated, categorically underreported and without accountability. In fact, as pointed out by many they have been restored to their exact same positions as if they were not responsible for the single greatest intelligence failure in the history of the U.S. Capitol Police is astounding."The former department official alleges that the pair didn't share intelligence information with the department that would have "changed the paradigm of that day" and that during the attack, "they did not try to help or assist as officers and officials were literally fighting for each other, their lives and the Congress.""What I observed was them mostly sitting there, blankly looking at the TV screens showing real-time footage of the officers and officials fighting for the Congress and their lives," the former department official, who said they were in the command center for part of the attack, wrote.A law enforcement source defended Pittman and Gallagher to CNN, saying they did not fail to act, but instead were focused on successfully ensuring the protection of lawmakers, who were all evacuated without harm.Still, the letter underscored the ways in which the Capitol Police department continues to grapple with the fallout of the Jan. 6 insurrection more than nine months after the attack. The mere shock of the event, and the criticism of the department that followed, has led the department to make some quick changes, like rank-and-file officers now getting daily intelligence alerts on their cell phones.The Capitol Police executive team, which includes Pittman and Gallagher, said in a statement to CNN that "a lot has changed since Jan. 6" and though "there is more work to do, many of the problems described in the letter have been addressed.""USCP leaders, under new Chief Tom Manger, are committed to learning from prior mistakes and protecting our brave officers, who fought valiantly on Jan. 6, so we can continue to carry out the Department's critical mission," the statement said."The men and women of this Department are committed to that critical mission. Our goal is to work as a team, to move forward, and advance the work that keeps the U.S. Capitol and the people who work here safe."Both Pittman and Gallagher were among the force's top leadership that received a vote of no confidence from members of the department one month after the attack.A vote of no confidence was among the most adversarial actions the union could take to express displeasure in leadership. The move signified USCP officers' deep frustrations with management and sent the loudest message officers can issue as a unified group.

Video above: The AP sits down with the new chief of the Capitol Police

A whistleblower identifying as a former high-ranking U.S. Capitol Police official excoriated the department's leadership before, during and after the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection in a new letter to Congress.

The 16-page letter, obtained by CNN and first reported by Politico, claims two Capitol Police officials — assistant chief Yogananda Pittman and acting assistant chief Sean Gallagher — did not share vital intelligence with other police leadership and did not act to help officers once the violence began on Jan. 6, but haven't seen any consequences in the months since. The letter, dated Sept. 28, addresses leaders of the U.S. House and Senate.

The whistleblower said they are a former high-ranking officer with more than 30 years of service at the department who worked there at the time of the attack.

Some of the allegations in the letter mirror criticism contained in reports from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the inspector general. But the letter takes particular aim at department leadership — and accuses some congressional leaders of having "purposefully failed" to tell the truth about the department's failures.

The alleged failures of Pittman and Gallagher, the former department official wrote, have been "marginalized, negligibly investigated, categorically underreported and without accountability. In fact, as pointed out by many they have been restored to their exact same positions as if they were not responsible for the single greatest intelligence failure in the history of the U.S. Capitol Police is astounding."

The former department official alleges that the pair didn't share intelligence information with the department that would have "changed the paradigm of that day" and that during the attack, "they did not try to help or assist as officers and officials were literally fighting for each other, their lives and the Congress."

"What I observed was them mostly sitting there, blankly looking at the TV screens showing real-time footage of the officers and officials fighting for the Congress and their lives," the former department official, who said they were in the command center for part of the attack, wrote.

A law enforcement source defended Pittman and Gallagher to CNN, saying they did not fail to act, but instead were focused on successfully ensuring the protection of lawmakers, who were all evacuated without harm.

Still, the letter underscored the ways in which the Capitol Police department continues to grapple with the fallout of the Jan. 6 insurrection more than nine months after the attack. The mere shock of the event, and the criticism of the department that followed, has led the department to make some quick changes, like rank-and-file officers now getting daily intelligence alerts on their cell phones.

The Capitol Police executive team, which includes Pittman and Gallagher, said in a statement to CNN that "a lot has changed since Jan. 6" and though "there is more work to do, many of the problems described in the letter have been addressed."

"USCP leaders, under new Chief Tom Manger, are committed to learning from prior mistakes and protecting our brave officers, who fought valiantly on Jan. 6, so we can continue to carry out the Department's critical mission," the statement said.

"The men and women of this Department are committed to that critical mission. Our goal is to work as a team, to move forward, and advance the work that keeps the U.S. Capitol and the people who work here safe."

Both Pittman and Gallagher were among the force's top leadership that received a vote of no confidence from members of the department one month after the attack.

A vote of no confidence was among the most adversarial actions the union could take to express displeasure in leadership. The move signified USCP officers' deep frustrations with management and sent the loudest message officers can issue as a unified group.

Source link

Is Facebook going to sue whistleblower Frances Haugen?

cincylink — Sun, 10 Oct 2021 04:19:31 +0000

Video above: Facebook exec responds to whistleblower testimonyFacebook has recently taken a harsher tone toward whistleblower Frances Haugen, suggesting that the social network could be considering legal retaliation after Haugen went public with internal research that she copied before leaving her job earlier this year. U.S. law protects whistleblowers who disclose information about potential misconduct to the government. But that protection doesn't necessarily cover taking corporate secrets to the media.Facebook still has to walk a fine line. The company has to weigh whether suing Haugen, which could dissuade other employees who might otherwise speak out, is worth casting itself as a legal Godzilla willing to stomp on a woman who says she's just doing the right thing.Haugen may face other consequences. Whistleblowers often put themselves at risk of professional damage — other firms may be reluctant to hire them in the future — and personal attacks from being in the public eye.Facebook did not respond to emailed questions.WHAT DID HAUGEN DO? Haugen secretly copied a trove of internal Facebook documents before leaving the company and subsequently had her lawyers file complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that Facebook hides what it knows about the negative effects of its platform. John Tye, her lawyer, said the team gave redacted documents to Congress, where Haugen testified on Tuesday, and also informed officials in California. Haugen also shared documents with the Wall Street Journal, which she started talking to in December, leading to a series of explosive stories that began in mid-September.WHAT WAS FACEBOOK'S RESPONSE?The company says it has been mischaracterized. "I think most of us just don't recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted," CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote to employees on Tuesday.Some company officials have also begun using harsher language to describe Haugen's actions that could be interpreted as threatening.In an Associated Press interview Thursday, Facebook executive Monika Bickert repeatedly referred to the documents Haugen copied as "stolen," a word she has also used in other media interviews. David Colapinto, a lawyer for Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto who specializes in whistleblower cases, said that language was threatening.In the same interview, asked if Facebook would sue or retaliate against the whistleblower, Bickert said only, "I can't answer that."A week earlier, Antigone Davis, Facebook's head of global safety, testified in the Senate that Facebook "would never retaliate against someone for speaking to Congress," which left open the possibility that the company might go after her for giving documents to the Journal.IS HAUGEN PROTECTED?Various laws offer whistleblower protection at both the state and federal levels. The federal laws applicable to Haugen are the Dodd-Frank Act, a 2010 Wall Street reform law, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act, a 2002 law that followed the collapse of Enron and other accounting scandals. Dodd-Frank expanded protections for whistleblowers and empowered the SEC to take action against a company that threatens a whistleblower. Protections exist for both employees and former employees, experts say.Asked about her risk because she went to the media, Haugen's lawyer, Tye, maintains that because Haugen went to the SEC, Congress and state authorities, she's entitled to whistleblower protections. He said any suit from Facebook would be "frivolous" and that Facebook has not been in touch.WHAT ABOUT HER LEAKS TO THE MEDIA?Courts haven't tested whether leaking to the media is protected under Dodd-Frank, but Colapinto said the U.S. Secretary of Labor determined decades ago that environmental and nuclear-safety whistleblowers' communications with the media were protected. He argues that the language of Sarbanes-Oxley is modeled on those earlier statutes, and Haugen should have the same protections for any of her communications with reporters. Facebook could allege that Haugen broke her nondisclosure agreement by sharing company documents with the press, leaking trade secrets or just by making comments Facebook considers defamatory, said Lisa Banks of Katz, Marshall and Banks, who has worked on whistleblower cases for decades. "Like many whistleblowers, she's extraordinarily brave and puts herself at personal and professional risk in shining a light on these practices," she said.Haugen effectively used leaks to the media to turn up the pressure on Congress and government regulators. Colapinto said her disclosures had a public-interest purpose that could complicate enforcing the NDA if Facebook chose to do so.COULD FACEBOOK FACE BLOWBACK?Facebook probably wants its veiled threats to unnerve other employees or former employees who might be tempted to speak out. "If they go after her, it won't be because they necessarily think they have a strong case legally, but sending a message to other would-be whistleblowers that they intend to play hardball," Banks said. But she said it would be a "disaster" for Facebook to go after Haugen. Regardless of potential legal vulnerabilities, Facebook might look like a bully if it pursued a legal case against her."The last thing Facebook needs is to rouse the ire of governmental authorities and the public at large by playing the role of the big bad giant company against the courageous individual whistleblower," said Neil Getnick, whose firm, Getnick and Getnick, represents whistleblowers.

Video above: Facebook exec responds to whistleblower testimony

Facebook has recently taken a harsher tone toward whistleblower Frances Haugen, suggesting that the social network could be considering legal retaliation after Haugen went public with internal research that she copied before leaving her job earlier this year.

U.S. law protects whistleblowers who disclose information about potential misconduct to the government. But that protection doesn't necessarily cover taking corporate secrets to the media.

Facebook still has to walk a fine line. The company has to weigh whether suing Haugen, which could dissuade other employees who might otherwise speak out, is worth casting itself as a legal Godzilla willing to stomp on a woman who says she's just doing the right thing.

Haugen may face other consequences. Whistleblowers often put themselves at risk of professional damage — other firms may be reluctant to hire them in the future — and personal attacks from being in the public eye.

Facebook did not respond to emailed questions.

WHAT DID HAUGEN DO?

Haugen secretly copied a trove of internal Facebook documents before leaving the company and subsequently had her lawyers file complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that Facebook hides what it knows about the negative effects of its platform.

John Tye, her lawyer, said the team gave redacted documents to Congress, where Haugen testified on Tuesday, and also informed officials in California. Haugen also shared documents with the Wall Street Journal, which she started talking to in December, leading to a series of explosive stories that began in mid-September.

WHAT WAS FACEBOOK'S RESPONSE?

The company says it has been mischaracterized. "I think most of us just don't recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted," CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote to employees on Tuesday.

Some company officials have also begun using harsher language to describe Haugen's actions that could be interpreted as threatening.

In an Associated Press interview Thursday, Facebook executive Monika Bickert repeatedly referred to the documents Haugen copied as "stolen," a word she has also used in other media interviews. David Colapinto, a lawyer for Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto who specializes in whistleblower cases, said that language was threatening.

In the same interview, asked if Facebook would sue or retaliate against the whistleblower, Bickert said only, "I can't answer that."

A week earlier, Antigone Davis, Facebook's head of global safety, testified in the Senate that Facebook "would never retaliate against someone for speaking to Congress," which left open the possibility that the company might go after her for giving documents to the Journal.

IS HAUGEN PROTECTED?

Various laws offer whistleblower protection at both the state and federal levels. The federal laws applicable to Haugen are the Dodd-Frank Act, a 2010 Wall Street reform law, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act, a 2002 law that followed the collapse of Enron and other accounting scandals.

Dodd-Frank expanded protections for whistleblowers and empowered the SEC to take action against a company that threatens a whistleblower. Protections exist for both employees and former employees, experts say.

Asked about her risk because she went to the media, Haugen's lawyer, Tye, maintains that because Haugen went to the SEC, Congress and state authorities, she's entitled to whistleblower protections. He said any suit from Facebook would be "frivolous" and that Facebook has not been in touch.

WHAT ABOUT HER LEAKS TO THE MEDIA?

Courts haven't tested whether leaking to the media is protected under Dodd-Frank, but Colapinto said the U.S. Secretary of Labor determined decades ago that environmental and nuclear-safety whistleblowers' communications with the media were protected. He argues that the language of Sarbanes-Oxley is modeled on those earlier statutes, and Haugen should have the same protections for any of her communications with reporters.

Facebook could allege that Haugen broke her nondisclosure agreement by sharing company documents with the press, leaking trade secrets or just by making comments Facebook considers defamatory, said Lisa Banks of Katz, Marshall and Banks, who has worked on whistleblower cases for decades. "Like many whistleblowers, she's extraordinarily brave and puts herself at personal and professional risk in shining a light on these practices," she said.

Haugen effectively used leaks to the media to turn up the pressure on Congress and government regulators. Colapinto said her disclosures had a public-interest purpose that could complicate enforcing the NDA if Facebook chose to do so.

COULD FACEBOOK FACE BLOWBACK?

Facebook probably wants its veiled threats to unnerve other employees or former employees who might be tempted to speak out. "If they go after her, it won't be because they necessarily think they have a strong case legally, but sending a message to other would-be whistleblowers that they intend to play hardball," Banks said.

But she said it would be a "disaster" for Facebook to go after Haugen. Regardless of potential legal vulnerabilities, Facebook might look like a bully if it pursued a legal case against her.

"The last thing Facebook needs is to rouse the ire of governmental authorities and the public at large by playing the role of the big bad giant company against the courageous individual whistleblower," said Neil Getnick, whose firm, Getnick and Getnick, represents whistleblowers.

Source link

Ex-Facebook employee bringing sharp criticisms to Congress

cincylink — Wed, 06 Oct 2021 04:20:02 +0000

A former Facebook data scientist has stunned lawmakers and the public with revelations of the company's awareness of apparent harm to some teens from Instagram and her accusations of dishonesty in its fight against hate and misinformation. Now she is coming before Congress.Frances Haugen has come forward with a wide-ranging condemnation of Facebook, buttressed with tens of thousands of pages of internal research documents she secretly copied before leaving her job in Facebook's civic integrity unit. Haugen also has filed complaints with federal authorities alleging that Facebook's own research shows that it amplifies hate, misinformation and political unrest, but the company hides what it knows.After recent reports in The Wall Street Journal based on documents she leaked to the newspaper raised a public outcry, Haugen revealed her identity in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview aired Sunday night. She insisted that "Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety."The ex-employee challenging the social network giant with 2.8 billion users worldwide and nearly $1 trillion in market value is a 37-year-old data expert from Iowa with a degree in computer engineering and a master's degree in business from Harvard. She worked for 15 years prior to being recruited by Facebook in 2019 at companies including Google and Pinterest. Haugen is set to testify to the Senate Commerce subcommittee on consumer protection at a hearing Tuesday. The panel is examining Facebook's use of information from its own researchers on Instagram that could indicate potential harm for some of its young users, especially girls, while it publicly downplayed the negative impacts. For some of the teens devoted to Facebook's popular photo-sharing platform, the peer pressure generated by the visually focused Instagram led to mental health and body-image problems, and in some cases, eating disorders and suicidal thoughts, the research leaked by Haugen showed. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse. "And what's super tragic is Facebook's own research says, as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed," Haugen said in the televised interview. "And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more." As the public relations debacle over the Instagram research grew last week, Facebook put on hold its work on a kids' version of Instagram, which the company says is meant mainly for tweens aged 10 to 12.The senators are eager to hear from Haugen. "I look forward to asking her follow-up questions about why Facebook hasn't taken action to fix problems on its platforms, even when its own internal research reflects massive problems," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., a member of the subcommittee, told The Associated Press on Monday. "I want to discuss how Facebook's algorithms promote harmful and divisive content, and how much Facebook really profits off of our children." At issue are algorithms that govern what shows up on users' news feeds, and how they favor hateful content. Haugen said a 2018 change to the content flow contributed to more divisiveness and ill will in a network ostensibly created to bring people closer together. Despite the enmity that the new algorithms were feeding, Facebook found that they helped keep people coming back — a pattern that helped the social media giant sell more of the digital ads that generate most of its revenue.Haugen's criticisms range beyond the Instagram situation. She said in the interview that Facebook prematurely turned off safeguards designed to thwart misinformation and incitement to violence after Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump last year, alleging that contributed to the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.After the November election, Facebook dissolved the civic integrity union where Haugen had been working. That, she said, was the moment she realized "I don't trust that they're willing to actually invest what needs to be invested to keep Facebook from being dangerous."Haugen says she told Facebook executives when they recruited her that she had asked to work in an area of the company that fights misinformation, because she had lost a friend to online conspiracy theories. Antigone Davis, Facebook's head of global safety, faced a barrage of criticism from senators on the Commerce panel at a hearing last Thursday. They accused Facebook of concealing the negative findings about Instagram and demanded a commitment from the company to make changes. Davis defended Instagram's efforts to protect young people using its platform. She disputed the way The Wall Street Journal story describes what the research shows.Facebook maintains that Haugen's allegations are misleading and insists there is no evidence to support the premise that it is the primary cause of social polarization. "Even with the most sophisticated technology, which I believe we deploy, even with the tens of thousands of people that we employ to try and maintain safety and integrity on our platform, we're never going to be absolutely on top of this 100% of the time," Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president of policy and public affairs, said Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources." That's because of the "instantaneous and spontaneous form of communication" on Facebook, Clegg said, adding, "I think we do more than any reasonable person can expect to." By coming forward, Haugen says she hopes it will help spur the government to put regulations in place for Facebook's activities. Like fellow tech giants Google, Amazon and Apple, Facebook has for years enjoyed minimal regulation in Washington. Separately Monday, a massive global outage plunged Facebook, Instagram and the company's WhatsApp messaging platform into chaos, only gradually dissipating by late Monday Eastern time. For some users, WhatsApp was working for a time, then not. For others, Instagram was working but not Facebook, and so on. Facebook didn't say what might have caused the outage, which began around 11:40 a.m. EDT and was still not fixed more than six hours later.

WASHINGTON —

Frances Haugen has come forward with a wide-ranging condemnation of Facebook, buttressed with tens of thousands of pages of internal research documents she secretly copied before leaving her job in Facebook's civic integrity unit. Haugen also has filed complaints with federal authorities alleging that Facebook's own research shows that it amplifies hate, misinformation and political unrest, but the company hides what it knows.

After recent reports in The Wall Street Journal based on documents she leaked to the newspaper raised a public outcry, Haugen revealed her identity in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview aired Sunday night. She insisted that "Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety."

The ex-employee challenging the social network giant with 2.8 billion users worldwide and nearly $1 trillion in market value is a 37-year-old data expert from Iowa with a degree in computer engineering and a master's degree in business from Harvard. She worked for 15 years prior to being recruited by Facebook in 2019 at companies including Google and Pinterest.

Haugen is set to testify to the Senate Commerce subcommittee on consumer protection at a hearing Tuesday.

The panel is examining Facebook's use of information from its own researchers on Instagram that could indicate potential harm for some of its young users, especially girls, while it publicly downplayed the negative impacts. For some of the teens devoted to Facebook's popular photo-sharing platform, the peer pressure generated by the visually focused Instagram led to mental health and body-image problems, and in some cases, eating disorders and suicidal thoughts, the research leaked by Haugen showed.

One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse.

"And what's super tragic is Facebook's own research says, as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed," Haugen said in the televised interview. "And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more."

As the public relations debacle over the Instagram research grew last week, Facebook put on hold its work on a kids' version of Instagram, which the company says is meant mainly for tweens aged 10 to 12.

The senators are eager to hear from Haugen.

"I look forward to asking her follow-up questions about why Facebook hasn't taken action to fix problems on its platforms, even when its own internal research reflects massive problems," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., a member of the subcommittee, told The Associated Press on Monday. "I want to discuss how Facebook's algorithms promote harmful and divisive content, and how much Facebook really profits off of our children."

At issue are algorithms that govern what shows up on users' news feeds, and how they favor hateful content. Haugen said a 2018 change to the content flow contributed to more divisiveness and ill will in a network ostensibly created to bring people closer together. Despite the enmity that the new algorithms were feeding, Facebook found that they helped keep people coming back — a pattern that helped the social media giant sell more of the digital ads that generate most of its revenue.

Haugen's criticisms range beyond the Instagram situation. She said in the interview that Facebook prematurely turned off safeguards designed to thwart misinformation and incitement to violence after Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump last year, alleging that contributed to the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

After the November election, Facebook dissolved the civic integrity union where Haugen had been working. That, she said, was the moment she realized "I don't trust that they're willing to actually invest what needs to be invested to keep Facebook from being dangerous."

Haugen says she told Facebook executives when they recruited her that she had asked to work in an area of the company that fights misinformation, because she had lost a friend to online conspiracy theories.

Antigone Davis, Facebook's head of global safety, faced a barrage of criticism from senators on the Commerce panel at a hearing last Thursday. They accused Facebook of concealing the negative findings about Instagram and demanded a commitment from the company to make changes.

Davis defended Instagram's efforts to protect young people using its platform. She disputed the way The Wall Street Journal story describes what the research shows.

Facebook maintains that Haugen's allegations are misleading and insists there is no evidence to support the premise that it is the primary cause of social polarization.

"Even with the most sophisticated technology, which I believe we deploy, even with the tens of thousands of people that we employ to try and maintain safety and integrity on our platform, we're never going to be absolutely on top of this 100% of the time," Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice president of policy and public affairs, said Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

That's because of the "instantaneous and spontaneous form of communication" on Facebook, Clegg said, adding, "I think we do more than any reasonable person can expect to."

By coming forward, Haugen says she hopes it will help spur the government to put regulations in place for Facebook's activities. Like fellow tech giants Google, Amazon and Apple, Facebook has for years enjoyed minimal regulation in Washington.

Separately Monday, a massive global outage plunged Facebook, Instagram and the company's WhatsApp messaging platform into chaos, only gradually dissipating by late Monday Eastern time. For some users, WhatsApp was working for a time, then not. For others, Instagram was working but not Facebook, and so on.

Facebook didn't say what might have caused the outage, which began around 11:40 a.m. EDT and was still not fixed more than six hours later.

Source link

Pres. Trump fires intelligence watchdog

cincylink — Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:31:22 +0000

The president informed the Senate Intelligence Committee he had fired Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee Michael Atkinson Friday.

Learn more about this story at

Find more videos like this at

Follow Newsy on Facebook:
Follow Newsy on Twitter:

source