After months of pressure from the British government, tech rivals Google and Microsoft have announced they are working together to try to push child pornography off the public Internet. The two companies, which account for 95 percent of all online searches, will reprogram their search engines so that 100,000 terms potentially related to the sexual abuse of children will no longer yield links to illegal images.
"We're agreed that child sexual imagery is a case apart; it's illegal everywhere in the world, there's a consensus on that. It's absolutely right that we identify this stuff, we remove it, and we report it to the authorities," Peter Barron, a Google communications director, told the BBC. The filters will take effect immediately in Britain and roll out in more than 150 languages over the next six months.
The details of how and when the system will roll out in the United States are unclear, but the algorithm changes are already in place, an industry source says.
“The sexual abuse of children ruins young lives. It’s why we proactively remove these awful images from our services – and report offenders to the authorities," said Mr. Barron in a statement released by Google.
While Barron was careful to make a distinction between child sexual imagery and other online content that's inherently abusive, some free-speech advocates see the crackdown as being at the top of a slippery slope toward a government-controlled Internet – especially since it comes on the heels of Edward Snowden's revelations that the British and US governments have been tapping these same companies for user information for at least six years in the name of criminal and security investigations.
Such curbs on pornography "could eventually rob Britain of the moral authority to denounce government-imposed Internet filtration in countries such as China," The Washington Post wrote in a Sept. 28 article. "Perhaps more than any other Western nation, critics say, Britain has become a test case for how and whether to more deeply police Internet images and social media in free societies."
British Prime Minister David Cameron placed himself at the helm of an anti-pornography crusade in July, in response to the brutal assault and slaying of two young girls in separate cases. Two British men who were known to have used child porn were convicted of the crimes.
But Mr. Cameron's campaign goes beyond child sexual imagery. Starting next year, British households will have to choose to opt in if they want their Internet providers to continue giving them access to any pornography. Cameron has also announced plans to criminalize the possession of porn images that depict rape, simulated or not.
When the prime minister's campaign began, The Washington Post pointed to examples of countries where child-protection legislation had opened doors to widespread Internet censorship.
"Take Russia, for example," the Post's Andrea Peterson wrote. "Last year, President Vladimir Putin signed legislation allowing a nation-wide register of banned Web sites declared harmful to Russia’s youth. This 'child protection' legislation opened the door for the online bans on political speech by opponents of the Putin regime. It also allowed for the nationwide roll out of a sophisticated surveillance technology called deep packet inspection that has proven to be a cost effective way for autocratic regimes to track online behavior."
"Obviously," Peterson continued, "Britain is a liberal democracy while Russia and China are more autocratic regimes. But before you dismiss the comparison, consider that British intelligence agencies are reportedly considering installing DPI capable “blackboxes” on [Internet service provider] servers to monitor web traffic."
The plan announced by Google and Microsoft, while cracking down on illegal content, also includes an effort to keep constructive information about child pornography available. When users type in any of the 100,000 flagged queries, they will be offered links to counseling services and academic papers, along with a message that child pornography is illegal.
Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, on Monday talked about the challenges inherent in identifying child pornography.
"There's no quick technical fix when it comes to detecting child sexual abuse imagery," he wrote in a Daily Mail op-ed. "This is because computers can't reliably distinguish between innocent pictures of kids at bathtime and genuine abuse. So we always need to have a person review the images."
But some child-protection activists are skeptical that these changes will make a difference.
Jim Gamble, former head of Britain's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, told "BBC Breakfast" that he didn't think they would help protect children. "[Pedophiles] don't go on to Google to search for images. They go on to the dark corners of the Internet on peer-to-peer websites," he said.
A better solution, Mr. Gamble added, would be to redirect the costs incurred by Google and Microsoft to hire child-protection experts and coordinators to hunt down online predators.
In fact, alongside the tech companies' announcement Monday, Cameron also announced a collaboration between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Britain's newly formed National Crime Agency, which has just hired 4,500 specialists to crack those illegal peer-to-peer networks. An FBI/NCA joint operation already damaged confidence in the anonymity of the so-called dark Web last month, reports Britain's Channel 4 news, when the two agencies targeted the underground drug marketplace known as the Silk Road .
“We are driving people out of the public Internet, which is a good thing,” Claire Perry, Cameron's adviser on preventing the sexualization of children, told the BBC. “People can’t find these images, so they are privately going into the deep Internet, and that is where we need to be.”
RECOMMENDED: 4 ways US can boost cybersecurity
Fewer American middle- and high-schoolers are using tobacco-derived products, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among students who did report tobacco use, cigarettes remained by far the most popular product.
Use of tobacco among high school students fell from 24.3 percent in 2011 to 23.3 percent in 2012. Among middle-schoolers, the drop was from 7.5 percent to 6.7 percent. But shifting trends among less common products have focused attention on electronic cigarettes – smokeless nicotine vaporizers whose use nearly doubled among teens in just one year, the CDC reported.
It's still a small sliver of teens who use e-cigarettes – 1.1 percent of middle-schoolers and 2.8 percent of high schoolers – but the tobacco-less cigarettes are almost unregulated because they are not classified as "a tobacco product." Some public health experts speculate that teens may perceive them as safer than traditional cigarettes, and that marketing is raising teen awareness of e-cigarettes. Although some municipalities have banned sales to minors, there are no restrictions on marketing that targets children, the Boston Globe reports.
RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about marijuana? Take the quiz
A growing segment of the e-cigarette industry does not support marketing to minors, Kip Schwartz, whose Washington, D.C., law firm represents a number of manufacturers and distributors, told the Washington Post. But some companies give their flavored e-cigarettes names – such as "Gummy Bear," "Candy Corn," and "Chick Magnet Cherry" – that seem targeted at the youth market. The US banned flavored paper cigarettes in 2009, amid arguments that flavors like chocolate, cherry, and clove were too appealing to young people.
According to the Chicago Tribune, a federal appeals court has empowered the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate e-cigarettes as if they were tobacco products, and the FDA is at work on a regulation whose contents have not been disclosed.
Only three states – North Dakota, New Jersey, and Utah – currently include e-cigarettes in their public and workplace smoking bans, along with about 100 cities.
A 2009 FDA study found that e-cigarettes release carcinogens and other toxins, but the absence of tar and carbon monoxide may make them healthier and less damaging to smokers' lungs than traditional cigarettes. Some e-models are designed to look just like cigarettes, but in place of the tobacco they hold a slender battery, and in place of the filter they have a refillable reservoir of liquid that includes nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and flavorings. When a user inhales, a pressure-triggered atomizer delivers a warm burst of vapor from the filter end while an LED light ignites the tip.
Those nearby will see a curl of vapor resembling smoke, and they may detect a brief sweet smell, but they are otherwise unobtrusive, allowing smokers to enjoy the uninterrupted company of nonsmokers, even indoors.
"We feel very strongly that we not be taxed and regulated as a tobacco product because our goal as an industry is to distinguish ourselves from traditional tobacco cigarettes," Eric Criss, president of the Electronic Cigarette Industry Group, told the Tribune. "We believe there's a ladder of harm. Cigarettes are at the top of that, and our goal is to get people to move down that ladder."
While the CDC report indicates that e-cigarettes are rising in popularity among teens, that rise is commensurate with a drop in their use of bidis, small string-wrapped Indian cigarettes that enjoy occasional surges in popularity in the US. The report showed decreases in tobacco use across all age and ethnic groups except for high-school-age African-American boys, whose use of hookahs, pipes, and especially cigars spiked in 2012. Otherwise, boys' rates of smoking dropped more dramatically than girls'.
The CDC report comes as the nation approaches the 50th anniversary of the first US Surgeon General's report on the dangers of smoking. In 1964, Luther L. Terry rocked the world's perception of smoking when he said it had been identified as a cause of certain cancers in men, a likely cause of lung cancer in women, and the most important cause of chronic bronchitis. But, cautioned the report, the "tobacco habit should be characterized as an habituation rather than an addiction."
Today tobacco is considered highly addictive, and authorities say smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the US, killing more than 1,200 Americans a day. Every day, more than 2,000 youths and young adults become daily smokers, according to the CDC.
A 2011 report from the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future project found that the US had the second-lowest rate of teen smoking (12 percent) compared with their peers in 36 European countries. (At 10 percent, only Iceland had a lower rate, and the average rate in Europe was 28 percent, more than twice that of the US.) But in a surprising twist, that same study found that US students had the third-highest rate of marijuana use (16 percent compared with Europe's 6 percent) and the highest use rates of all other illicit drugs, including hallucinogens and amphetamines.
RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about marijuana? Take the quiz
Tech giant Google portrays itself as an earnest crusader for transparency straining against an overbearing government in its new Transparency Report released Thursday – its first since Edward Snowden revealed the company's connection to a clandestine National Security Agency surveillance program.
The semiannual report, which documents who is asking Google for information on its users, reveals a steady surge in government requests for Google users' data. The company received 12,539 requests in the last six months of 2009; in the first half of 2013, that number had more than doubled to 25,879.
The US accounted for 10,918 of those requests, but the report makes clear that the numbers are incomplete, due to government gag orders. Beside three charts showing the demographics, growth, and format of these requests is a chart labeled "Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Act requests," which is inked out.
"We want to go even further. We believe it’s your right to know what kinds of requests and how many each government is making of us and other companies. However, the U.S. Department of Justice contends that U.S. law does not allow us to share information about some national security requests that we might receive…. Our promise to you is to continue to make this report robust, to defend your information from overly broad government requests, and to push for greater transparency around the world," states the report.
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Yahoo are all suing for the right to share more detailed information about the FISA requests they receive from the NSA and the FBI, according to the Associated Press. The Obama administration opposes the lawsuits, arguing that any disclosures would compromise antiterrorism programs. Currently, the companies are barred from disclosing even the number of FISA requests they receive.
"Google has not been allowed to give truthful and complete information about how often our government comes seeking user data, and that is rightfully offensive to Google and to its consumers," says Nate Cardozo, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who specializes in privacy and free speech. "The Obama administration claims that it wants transparency, and I think these actions belie that claim."
Google's update comes five months after reports broke about the PRISM program, in which the NSA was collecting user data from the servers of nine companies. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft accounted for 98 percent of that information.
It also comes amid a push by tech companies and Internet freedom advocates to require a warrant for the government to demand communications. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bipartisan bill to reform the 1987 Electronic Communications Privacy Act earlier this year. A companion bill in the House has more than 140 sponsors, according to the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Currently, 68 percent of Google's US requests come in the form of subpoenas, 22 percent as warrants, and the rest as court orders, pen register orders, and emergency disclosure requests.
Google's transparency report began in 2010 as a response to increasing pressure to divulge government requests. It was the first major tech company to issue a transparency report, and six of its peers have followed.
According to a chart by the EFF, Twitter and Sonic.net are the only two tech companies that receive a full six stars for transparency, telling users about government data requests, requiring warrants, publishing transparency reports and enforcement guidelines, and fighting for users' privacy both in courts and in Congress. Of the 18 companies included on the chart, Verizon is the only one that has taken none of these actions. Google would earn six stars if it started alerting users to government data requests.
The 10,918 US requests documented in the report account for nearly half of those Google received from January to June of this year. India filed 2,691 during the same period, and Germany filed 2,311. But neither matched the US government's 83 percent success rate; Google complied with only 64 percent of India's requests, and 48 percent of Germany's.
The government's interest in companies like Google is nothing new. The US has long tapped businesses that have "a lot of customer data, like a phone company, a power company, or a shipping company," says Mr. Cardozo of the EFF.
The difference is the volume of data Google has, he adds: "Google has similar types of information, just more of it."
While bereaved families grieve privately for the four US Marines who died Wednesday in California, unnamed sources have given news outlets conflicting accounts of what happened.
The accident occurred at the Zulu Impact Area of the 125,000-acre Camp Pendleton near San Diego, where Marines conduct artillery and bombing exercises. The Associated Press cited a Marine official who anonymously said the accident had taken place during a "periodic sweep of explosive materials." But according to NBC San Diego, "sources inside the Pentagon said the Marines were not clearing the range, but instead doing some sort of training when the deadly detonation occurred."
The deaths come six months after a US Navy SEAL was killed in a vehicle accident during a May training exercise. Just two months before that, a mortar explosion that killed seven Marines during a training exercise in Nevada prompted questions about the necessity of live-fire training in an era when explosions can now simulate the chaos of warfare without replicating its injuries.
NBC San Diego reported on six accidents involving Pendleton-based Marines since the start of 2011. Claiming a total of 14 lives, they included a skydiving accident, two helicopter crashes, and an amphibious assault vehicle that sank to the bottom of a basin.
Also during 2011, two soldiers collapsed during separate 2011 training exercises, prompting a probe into the stimulant Dimethylamylamine, a geranium-based body-building supplement that was found in their systems.
According to the Department of Defense, 424 active duty US military personnel died worldwide from accidents in 2010. In comparison, 456 died as a result of "hostile action" that year, and 289 deaths were self-inflicted. In September of this year, 1.38 million Americans were serving on active duty.
Marine mammal park company SeaWorld, whose trainers were barred from close contact with killer whales after an orca named Tilikum killed a trainer in 2010, is arguing in federal appeals court that government regulators overstepped their authority when they restricted that contact.
Following this year's release of the documentary "Blackfish," which alleges that SeaWorld has withheld information on accidents and fatalities involving killer whales, the entertainment company's practices have come under heightened scrutiny.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is now being asked to decide if requiring barriers and minimum distances between orca and human performers is a sensible safety measure imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or a crippling curtailment of Orlando-based SeaWorld's main attraction.
RECOMMENDED: Swimming with the big fish
"It's as if the federal government came in and told the NFL that 'close contact' on the football field would have to end," SeaWorld's attorney, Eugene Scalia, told the three presiding judges, arguing that playing pro football incurred more injuries than training orcas.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland questioned that logic, asking if the restriction on SeaWorld weren't more akin to requiring helmets in football games. Did the helmet "totally change the nature of the presentation of the NFL?" Judge Garland asked.
In court documents filed Wednesday, SeaWorld argued that the contact in orca shows, in which the striking animals launch themselves through the air while trainers use their huge bodies as gymnastic springboards, are central to the appeal of orca performances.
"Contact with killer whales is essential to the product offered by SeaWorld, and is indeed the primary reason trainers and audiences have been drawn to SeaWorld for nearly 50 years," the company stated.
"It's a very, very good point for SeaWorld to make," David Kirby, author of "Death at Seaworld," told CBS.
"Why us and why not NFL or NASCAR? Because let's face it, the show is much more spectacular when the trainers are in the water than when they're just on stage."
But Lori Marino, an Emory University neuroscientist and marine mammal expert, calls the analogy between SeaWorld performances and football "ridiculous."
"The reason it doesn't work is that in pro sports everyone is involved volitionally – everyone who is there wants to be there, knows the risks, and have made a conscious decision to live with that risk," says Professor Marino.
"In the case of orcas in SeaWorld, they are there against their will," she adds. "Not only are the orcas there against their will, but the trainers don't have the information they need to make an informed decision about the risk. They are not given all the information – they are only told what the company wants them to know."
In response to SeaWorld's appeal of the OSHA ruling, government lawyers submitted that "forty-plus years of history at the SeaWorld parks have yielded occasion after occasion where captive killer whales have not responded as their trainers intended."
The recent documentary Blackfish gathered footage of numerous attacks and accidents at marine parks, along with interviews with former SeaWorld trainers who indicated that the company had taken pains to hide those events both from the public and from its own trainers.
Animal history scholar Jason Hribal detailed many of these events in his 2010 book, "Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance." In it, he described a non-fatal orca attack in 1987 that caused a complete overhaul of SeaWorld management. "It was a huge deal, kind of like today," he recalls. In that case, the trainer and zoological director were both fired, and its owner at the time, the publishing company Harcourt Brace, sold SeaWorld to the beer company Anhauser Busch.
In 1991 an orca named Nootka killed her trainer in Sealand, a Vancouver Island marine park, while a young Tilikum was in the same pool. Eight years later a man who had broken into Tilikum's pool was found dead the next morning, with bite marks on his body. And in 2010, during a SeaWorld dinner performance, Tilikum seized veteran trainer Dawn Brancheau by the ponytail and pinned her to the bottom of the pool, drowning her. Hribal and the makers of BlackFish have both described how a two-year-old Tilikum was separated from his family in a violent capture off the coast of Iceland.
"The orcas, themselves, are workers too," says Hribal. "They are the ones doing the performances, training, etc. They are the ones making the millions. They must be considered in this legal equation."
SeaWorld will report its third-quarter earnings Wednesday, and they are expected to be strong. The court of appeals is expected to decide within the next several months whether to lift the restrictions on orca shows.
RECOMMENDED: Swimming with the big fish
The flurry of letters announcing Harry Potter's acceptance into the wizard school Hogwarts – which arrived in persistent droves as Harry's loveless Uncle Vernon destroyed them – must have been a boon to Britain's Royal Mail system.
The cash-strapped US Postal Service has enjoyed no such enchanted burst of activity since the age of e-mail began, but the agency is hoping to cash in on the nationwide love for J.K. Rowling's characters, plucky and evil alike, with a set of limited-edition commemorative Harry Potter stamps. For sale starting Tuesday, Nov. 19, they will depict 20 scenes and characters from the bestselling books that became blockbuster movies.
The USPS, which reported losing nearly $25 million per day earlier this year, hopes this limited run will be preserved in the collections of both Harry Potter fans and philatelists. "I think the stamps will spark a lot of interest among young people," Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe told USA Today.
RECOMMENDED: Top 10 moments from the Harry Potter series
Although the Harry Potter stories were wildly popular in the United States and adapted for the screen by Warner Bros., the characters themselves are not American. The USPS limited edition thus appears to be part of efforts by the agency to broaden the appeal of its stamps.
For several years, the Postal Service has loosened restrictions on the subject matter of stamps. Prior to 2007, only people who had been deceased for at least 10 years were eligible to appear. In 2007, that was dropped to five years, and in 2011, the agency asked the public to suggest who should be the first living subject to grace a US stamp.
But two years later, no announcement has been made about a living selection. "We're still in the decision mode here," spokesman Roy Betts said.
This will not be the first time that US stamps have commemorated fictional characters. In 2009 and 2010, the USPS printed 1 billion stamps based on the animated TV show "The Simpsons," to commemorate the show's 20th anniversary. That number suggested an expectation that those stamps would sell twice as well as the most popular US stamp ever printed, a 1993 Elvis portrait. Some 124 million Elvis stamps remain in collections, according to the American Philatelic Society.
But only a third of the Simpsons stamps sold, costing the USPS $1.2 million in printing costs that were not recouped. This fueled the arguments of antigovernment activists. “If the Postal Service can’t address a simple matter such as determining how many commemorative stamps to produce, it shows they can’t address the larger problems,” Thomas Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, told Bloomberg. [Editor's note: The original version of this article incorrectly stated that the USPS had lost $1.2 billion from the Simpsons stamp printing.]
The 44 cent Simpsons stamps also became somewhat inconvenient, when the price of a first-class letter rose to 45 cents. The Harry Potter stamps, which are Forever stamps whose value appreciates alongside the cost of postage, should avoid this problem.
The Postal Service lost $16 billion last year and expects to incur a $6 billion loss this year, according to the Associated Press. To save money, earlier this year it proposed stopping Saturday letter deliveries, but that plan fizzled.
Yet in a deal that could give the Postal Service a boost, Amazon on Monday announced that a partnership with the agency so its packages can be delivered on Sundays. The service is starting in New York and Los Angeles, with plans for it to expand to other US cities next year.
As for Harry Potter, the appeal of the series continues to animate other sectors as well. A research team at the University of Texas at Austin has made strides toward creating an "invisibility cloak" capable of making objects transparent, similar to the one used by Harry.
And Starbucks has released a butterbeer this week, for Muggles wanting to guzzle wizardly froth this fall.
RECOMMENDED: Top 10 moments from the Harry Potter series
Federal prosecutors said at a Tuesday hearing in Boston that they will decide by next week whether or not to recommend the death penalty for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
That recommendation will then go to United States Attorney General Eric Holder, who will have until Jan. 31 to review their proposal and make a final decision.
Prosecutors are aiming to put Tsarnaev on trial next fall, according to The Boston Herald. The trial is expected to last 90 days, plus an additional 60 days if the death sentence is under consideration, Assistant US Attorney William Weinreb told US District Court Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.
For now, Tsarnaev is being kept in solitary confinement in a prison near Boston, without access to media or prayer services, as per a government "Special Administrative Measure" designed to prevent incarcerated terrorists from inciting violence. The measure also prevents him from speaking confidentially with his lawyers, and prohibits them from discussing their conversations with Tsarnaev, or relaying messages from him.
Tsarnaev's lawyers challenged that measure last month and argued at Tuesday's hearing that it prevented them from building a fair case in his defense.
"This is not a level playing field," defense attorney Miriam Conrad told the court. "It appears the government is trying to retain every possible advantage in this case for itself."
"I agree enough with the defendant," Judge O'Toole said, according to ABC News. "It may concern adequate preparation for the case."
The Atlantic found troubling implications in the government's choice to restrict Tsarnaev's communication with lawyers.
"In the 17 years since SAMs were first authorized their scope has been expanded by the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and by the sort of "mission creep" that is inevitable whenever bureaucracy is combined with a lack of strong judicial oversight. Where exactly does that put us today? If the government is permitted to impose restrictions on Tsarnaev's fair-trial rights based upon the justifications it has offered in this case it could very well impose such restrictions on virtually any criminal defendant awaiting trial in a capital case."
But the Justice department opposed the legal challenge by Tsarnaev's counsel, arguing that his scrawlings on the night of his capture demonstrated a clear desire to incite further violence:
"Tsarnaev’s desire to inspire others to commits acts of terrorism is evident in the message he wrote in pen on the inside of the boat where he took refuge after his own ability to commit terrorist acts was exhausted. He wrote: The 'U.S. government is killing our innocent civilians but most of you already know that. As a M[uslim] I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished, we Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all.... [T]he ummah [i.e. the Muslim people] is beginning to rise.... Know you are fighting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, now how can you compete with that. We are promised victory and we will surely get it.'"
O'Toole barred the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been fighting against the conditions of Tsarnaev's confinement, from making a statement at today's hearing.
After Mr. Holder makes his recommendation, Tsarnaev's defense team will have until Feb. 28 to notify O'Toole if they plan to petition for a change of venue, in search of an impartial jury.
Tsarnaev is the surviving suspect in the April 15 bombing near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, which killed three people and wounded more than 260.
"60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan apologized Friday for her staff's failure to vet a guest who indicated that the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the US special mission compound in Benghazi, Libya, had resulted from government negligence.
The guest, a Welsh security contractor who has just written a book purporting to give a first-hand account of the attack, was found to have given a conflicting report to the FBI. After 12 days of defending the Oct. 27 segment, CBS removed it from the "60 Minutes" website and apologized, but not before it had reinvigorated a months-long push by Republicans to demand that the White House bring the attack's eyewitnesses to testify before Congress.
"The survivors, the people who survived the attack in Benghazi, have not been made available to the US Congress for oversight purposes," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina told "Fox & Friends" last month. “So I’m going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to Congress.”
The Benghazi attack on two US compounds killed four people including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and critics of the White House have expressed outrage that officials did not immediately acknowledge it as a terrorist attack. Instead, administration officials suggested at the time that it might have begun as a protest to an anti-Islamic video made by an Egyptian Christian man.
"Of course as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video," said then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, on the CBS program "Face the Nation" shortly after the attack.
The attack occurred shortly before President Obama's reelection, leading some to suspect a government coverup of evidence that Al Qaeda remained a menace.
"Much of the information about Benghazi is classified, I think for political reasons more than anything else," said Senator Graham. CNN has since reported that three Al Qaeda operatives were involved in the attack.
The CBS guest, a security manager introduced by the pseudonym "Sgt. Morgan Jones" for the interview and his book, said he identified Ambassador Stevens’ body in a hospital before heading to the compound, scaling a wall, and dispatching a militant with his rifle, which nobody else could see. Just hours earlier, he said, Stevens had contacted him with concerns about the compound's security.
But the Washington Post reported on a first-person FBI incident report, allegedly filed to a British security firm contracted by the State Department, written by "Project Manager, Dylan Davies," which the paper confirmed was Jones's real name and title. In it, Davies says he identified Stevens' face from a photo texted to his phone, and did not visit the compound under siege. "We could not get anywhere near the mission as roadblocks had been set up by the Sharia brigade," he wrote then.
In her apology, CBS's Ms. Logan said Davies had consistently acknowledged that he gave a false report to his employer, explaining that he had gone to the mission out of concern, despite strict instructions to stay away. But, said Logan, he had also told "60 Minutes" that he was giving them the same report he gave to the FBI, which appears to be untrue.
"We take the vetting of sources and stories very seriously at '60 Minutes', and we took it seriously in this case, but we were misled, and we were wrong," said Logan.
In a Nov. 2 interview with The Daily Beast, Davies said he had neither seen nor written that report. “I am just a little man against some big people here,” he said. “They can do things, make up things, anything they want, I wouldn’t stand a chance.”
It is unclear at this point whether Davies lied in his report or in his book, though Media Matters spotted some inconsistency in the book's account.
But the "60 Minutes" segment did not rely on Davies' account alone. Greg Hicks, the former deputy to Ambassador Stevens, and Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a top US security official based in Tripoli, both told Logan of repeated warnings to the State Department about poor security and the likelihood of an imminent attack, which they say went unheeded.
In the now-retracted segment, Lt. Col. Wood described the attack's careful and expert execution, and Mr. Hicks described learning that no large-scale military help was being sent to defend the mission. CNN reported on an independent review of the attack in December 2012, which cited "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the State Department.
Whether or not "60 Minutes" made a gross oversight in using Davies as a source, it did leave a key detail out of its report: CBS owns Simon & Schuster, the publisher that has just released Davies' book, "The Embassy House." It remains to be seen how the recent revelations will affect the reach of his story, whose movie rights Davies recently sold, and how they will affect the political storm around Benghazi developments.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dismissed Senator Graham's threat as political posturing.
"When it comes to oversight and Benghazi, as you know, the administration has made extraordinary efforts to work with seven different congressional committees investigating what happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks," he told Foreign Policy magazine. "That includes testifying at 13 congressional hearings, participating in 40 staff briefings, and providing over 25,000 pages of documents."
As the New York Stock Exchange's opening bell pealed across the trading floor Thursday morning, heralding Twitter's first day as a publicly owned company, an investment scramble immediately drove the price of a share to $45.10, 73 percent above the opening share price of $26. The spike was driven by investors demanding 30 times more than the 70 million available shares; the share price of TWTR steadily hovered above $45 through the mid-afternoon.
The owners of Twitter, the free online microblogging platform that has facilitated political uprisings and sexting scandals via users' 140-character messages – along with a lot of self-hype this week, as one user observed – have yet to turn a profit off their hungry and growing eight-year-old company. But the more than $3 billion they've made today will allow them to fund eight new revenue streams, including ads targeted to specific audiences and more sales of user data to analytics companies.
Twitter had lost a total of $483 million by this fall, a quarter that also saw one of the company's biggest three-month losses ($65 million) in the past three years. But AP reported that its revenue last quarter also doubled from this time last year, to $169 million. If that seems confusing – that its losses and revenues could be growing at the same time – it's because the company has been pouring money into growth. During that quarter, the company hired 300 new employees, building a workforce of 2,300.
RECOMMENDED: Seven rules for tech investing
Those workers have got to be in high spirits today. According to Twitter's recent securities filing, the company distributed nearly 86 million restricted stock units among its employees – 16 million more than it sold on the stock exchange Thursday morning. At current rates, those shares are worth about $3.9 billion, or an average of $1.7 million per employee, according to the Wall Street Journal, though the stock is not divided evenly, and most of it can't be sold for years.
Twitter's IPO is the largest from a US technology company since Facebook’s debut in May 2012, which was an alarming flop that saw stock prices plummet on the day they were released. Facebook, whose IPO was widely regarded as damagingly over-hyped, was able to rebound by the start of 2013, but observers say Twitter likely drew valuable lessons from the debacle, such as keeping its initial offering modest.
While Facebook is much more widely recognized and used than Twitter, the smaller company continues to grow, with at least 230 million monthly active users. IPO analyst Francis Gaskins told Bloomberg West that this lower awareness may turn out to be an advantage.
"People don't really understand Twitter, they don't really understand the revenue model. And that's really good for a software, to come public and for people not to totally understand it," said Mr. Gaskins, who is paid to offer advice on IPOs. "The pot is definitely boiling for Twitter," he said.
Twitter has said it may release another 10.5 million shares, if trading remains high.
RECOMMENDED: Seven rules for tech investing
After months of false starts, the Illinois House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to legalize same-sex marriage, and reports suggest that Pope Francis's recent comments about homosexuality may have played a small but significant role.
At least one Catholic lawmaker cited the pope's statement as she explained her recent decision, and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, also a Catholic, used the pope's words to articulate his own reasons for supporting the bill. Previously, he had been criticized for not pushing hard enough to rally support within his congressional chamber.
Other factors played into the shift that made passage through the House possible Tuesday, including two US Supreme Court decisions this summer in favor of gay marriage, according to observers. But with polls showing public opinion moving toward greater acceptance of gay marriage, the events in Illinois raise questions about whether opposition among Catholic lawmakers could be waning.
Pope Francis caused international ripples in July, when he warned that the Roman Catholic Church had become too focused on its opposition to homosexuality, asking, "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?"
At that point, the Illinois bill had passed through the state Senate but was languishing in the House. The House convened in both January and May without voting on the bill, as its supporters struggled to assemble a majority amid a tide of organized opposition, with churches among the leading opponents.
But according to The Chicago Tribune, Pope Francis' comments "sparked a wave of soul-searching by several Catholic lawmakers who had battled to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sworn duty to represent their constituents who were increasingly supportive of gay rights even as Cardinal Francis George remained opposed."
State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (D), who had spent much of the summer undecided, voted for the bill on Tuesday, telling the Tribune, "As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion, and justice for all people."
And House Speaker Madigan (D) echoed the Pope's words in the Tribune, adding a legal twist: "For those that just happen to be gay – living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal – who am I to judge that they should be illegal?"
Though he was an early supporter of the bill, his commitment to it had been question. But on Tuesday, advocates told the Tribune that he had been instrumental in rounding up the needed votes in recent weeks – and Madigan told the paper that he had personally helped persuade at least five legislators to support it.
The bill passed, 61 to 54, and Gov. Pat Quinn (D) has promised to sign it, making Illinois the 15th state to legalize gay marriage.
The Chicago Sun-Times noted how the statement had a neutralizing impact on the arguments of local Church leadership:
"Despite harsh rhetoric on the issue from Cardinal George and other [local] Catholic leaders, their positions against the bill were severely undercut by several statements from newly installed Pope Francis that were widely interpreted – as Madigan himself did Tuesday – as more welcoming to gay and lesbian couples."
The Tribune also pegged the Supreme Court decisions this summer as instrumental. "Supporters said efforts to pick up votes were boosted by events that unfolded since May, the first being the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling that struck down the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of receiving federal benefits," writes the paper.
Local Catholic officials were dismayed by the House vote.
"We remain concerned about the very real threats to religious liberty that are at stake with the passage of this bill," said the Catholic Conference of Illinois, in a statement released Tuesday. "Today's vote to redefine marriage in the State of Illinois is truly grievous," said Bishop David Malloy, in a separate statement.
But according to a poll released Oct. 22 by Fako & Associates of Lisle, Ill., state voters who identify as Catholic support gay marriage by a 2-to-1 ratio. This is dramatically higher than the rate of approval among Illinoisans in general (52 percent), according to the same poll.
Once the new law is signed by Governor Quinn, gay civil unions, which have been legal in Illinois since 2011, can be converted into marriages.