News | Ripple's Web

(Time) — Trust us, we’re from Silicon Valley.

America’s largest Internet companies are tripping over themselves to bolster their public image following blockbuster disclosures about their role in the U.S. government’s controversial data-gathering program.

Ever since news reports suggested that major tech firms — including Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo — provide the National Security Agency (NSA) with unfettered or “direct” access to their servers, the companies have been waging an aggressive campaign to demonstrate that they’re not government stooges.

Now, several of the top Silicon Valley firms are engaged in a game of one-upmanship to show that they are the most transparent Internet company on the block.

The initial reports about “direct access,” as part of a classified U.S. intelligence system called Prism, have turned out to be wrong. But the Prism reports have highlighted long-standing privacy fears about how the largest U.S. tech companies handle their vast troves of user data. The Internet giants have come under scrutiny following reports that the NSA uses Prism to examine data — including e-mails, videos and online chats — that it collects via requests made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), one of the controversial laws at the heart of the current NSA-snooping furor.

Apple discloses data request numbers

Obama: NSA programs are transparent

Facebook admits role in NSA surveillance

Following the Prism leak, which was supplied to the Guardian and the Washington Post by whistle-blower Edward Snowden, Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo all issued statements — in strikingly similar legal language — denying that they give the NSA “direct” or unfettered access to their computer servers.

But the companies apparently felt the need to go further than those denials, and in recent days have engaged in a competition to demonstrate their commitment to transparency.

MORE: Google: We’re no NSA stooge, and we’ll prove it if the feds let us

Although Silicon Valley has roots in the U.S. military — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was central to the development of the Internet — today’s big tech companies are keen to demonstrate their independence from the government and often display a libertarian streak.

Many engineers in Silicon Valley are sympathetic to “hacker” culture. Above all, Silicon Valley tech titans are wary of losing the trust of consumers, which could endanger their businesses. These companies are no doubt well aware of the numerous more secure alternatives to their services, some of which enable users to roam the Internet anonymously.

Google kicked off the transparency battle last week when it asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller for permission to publish “aggregate numbers of national-security requests, including FISA disclosures — in terms of both the number we receive and their scope.”

That request was noteworthy because it was the first time Google had even acknowledged that it receives national-security FISA requests. Facebook and Microsoft quickly followed suit with similar requests. A Department of Justice spokesperson told TIME that the agency is in the process of reviewing the request.

Then, over the weekend, Facebook, which unlike Google has never published a transparency report, reached an agreement with the government allowing it to disclose data on U.S. information requests. Facebook said that for the six months ending Dec. 31, 2012, it received between 9,000 and 10,000 data requests, including criminal and national-security-related requests, covering between 18,000 and 19,000 accounts.

“We’re pleased that as a result of our discussions, we can now include in a transparency report all U.S. national-security-related requests (including FISA as well as National Security Letters) — which until now no company has been permitted to do,” Facebook general counsel Ted Ullyot said in a not-so-subtle dig at the company’s rivals.

Shortly thereafter, Microsoft released similar data, indicating that the company received between 6,000 and 7,000 criminal and national-security requests affecting between 31,000 and 32,000 consumer accounts.

“This only impacts a tiny fraction of Microsoft’s global customer base,” John Frank, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel, said in a blog post. “Transparency alone may not be enough to restore public confidence, but it’s a great place to start.”

On Monday, Apple joined the party and announced that from Dec. 1, 2012, to May 31, 2013, it received between 4,000 and 5,000 requests from U.S. law enforcement for customer data related to between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices, including both criminal investigations and national-security “matters.” Apple said it was releasing the data “in the interest of transparency.”

Yahoo followed late Monday, saying it received “between 12,000 and 13,000 requests, inclusive of criminal, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and other requests.”

MORE: Here’s why Google is buying Waze, a red-hot mobile traffic app, for $1 billion

Here’s the problem. According to the agreement Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Yahoo reached with the government, the companies were only permitted to release aggregate numbers of total U.S. data requests. Crucially, they were not permitted to separately break out the number of FISA requests.

For this reason, we don’t know if they received 50 FISA requests, 500 or 5,000. As a result, the disclosures, while laudable, skirt around the central issue of the NSA-snooping controversy, which is the nature and extent of the companies’ participation in secret U.S. national-security investigations.

“We believe the companies should be allowed to break out specific numbers for FISA requests,” said Amie Stepanovich, director of the Domestic Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based public-interest organization. “These numbers would provide nationwide transparency. We also believe that individual users targeted under FISA should receive notice that they were subject to surveillance, even after the fact, so they have the chance to contest the surveillance in court.”

For Google, which earlier this year was the first Internet company to disclose requests made for National Security Letters (NSLs) — a separate type of query than FISA requests — the arrangement struck by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Yahoo was not satisfactory.

“We have always believed that it’s important to differentiate between different types of government requests,” Google said in a statement. “We already publish criminal requests separately from National Security Letters. Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users. Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national-security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately.”

MORE: Viewpoint: Obama’s ‘patent troll’ reform: Why everyone should care

Twitter, which was not named in the NSA leak as a participant in the Prism program, quickly threw its support behind Google.

“We agree with Google,” Benjamin Lee, Twitter’s legal director, said in a Twitter message. “It’s important to be able to publish numbers of national-security requests — including FISA disclosures — separately.”

Thus, the contours of the transparency battle were drawn. On one side: Facebook, Microsoft and Apple. On the other, Google and Twitter.

For their part, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo said they would continue to urge the government to allow them to be more specific about national-security requests, including FISA requests. Facebook said it would continue “to push for even more transparency, so that our users around the world can understand how infrequently we are asked to provide user data on national-security grounds.” Microsoft said: “What we are permitted to publish continues to fall short of what is needed to help the community understand and debate these issues.”

But only Google has thus far resisted striking a deal with the government on the disclosure of data requests. On Monday, a Google spokesperson told TIME that the company had no update on its negotiations with the government concerning breaking out FISA requests.

copy 2012 TIME, Inc. TIME is a registered trademark of Time Inc. Used with permission.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_technology/~3/b5p05hRr_zA/index.html

Editor’s note: Doug Gross covers consumer technology and the Web for CNN.com. Follow his updates on Twitter or add him to your Circles on Google+.

(CNN) — Let’s face it: Most of us don’t e-mail, tweet, text or post anything worthy of clandestine scrutiny.

But having concerns about NSA cybersnooping doesn’t mean we must surrender all privacy — what’s left of it — in our day-to-day online activities.

It’s easy to forget that we’re volunteering basic information about ourselves in return for free e-mail, social networking and other digital services. And let’s remember that third parties — from government agencies to cybercriminals — can get their hands on even more personal stuff if they’re actively trying.

So, whether it’s due to a vague fear of Big Brother or a more specific desire to keep your bank information out of the hands of thieves, you might be considering ways to keep your communication more secure.

Apple discloses data request numbers

Snowden: Hong Kong was easiest answer

“So much that’s geo-political, so much cybercrime, so many struggles of various types are being played out in terms of information security today,” said Wade Williamson, a senior security analyst at Palo Alto Networks. “It’s not just that people decided to get interested in encryption all of a sudden.”

CNNMoney: How to hide from the NSA

Specifically, encryption has come up a lot in recent days. For one, NSA whistleblower (some would say “traitor”) Edward Snowden said Monday in an online question-and-answer session that e-mail encryption is an effective way of foiling government surveillance.

“Encryption works,” he wrote. “Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.”

Encryption is a method of securing your files, including e-mail, by encoding it so that the intended recipient can read it, but anyone who may intercept the message along the way cannot.

An encryption tool turns your original message (called “plaintext”) into a garbled mess (or “ciphertext”) while it’s flying from Point A to Point B. The system gives the approved recipient a decryption tool which makes the text readable once it arrives at its destination.

With all of the renewed interest in online privacy, we talked with Williamson about ways to help keep your data secure — before, during and after sending it.

Before

First things first. There are ways to make your contact with every website you visit more secure.

A “secure sockets layer” (SSL) provides a layer of security during everything from Web browsing to text messaging. Many major websites offer the option of using a secure connection all the time. Williamson and other security experts suggest doing this when given the option.

If not — sometimes it can be as easy as tweaking “http” to “https” in your browser’s address bar.

“By and large, you can just throw an ‘S’ into the URL and go to town,” Williamson said.

There are also tools like HTTPS Everywhere, a free extension for Chrome and Firefox browsers, that encrypt your connection with most major websites.

Obama: I’m no Dick Cheney

During

Most major e-mail services, like Outlook and Gmail, offer some form of encryption. Check your e-mail’s security settings for options.

But for people who are really worried about their e-mails being intercepted — and that’s always just an unsecured network and an eager hacker away — Williamson suggests buying encryption software. (Note: His company focuses on network security and does not sell encryption software to individuals).

With many of the systems, customers will get digital “certificates” for themselves called private keys. Everyone with whom they want to share encrypted messages will receive public keys.

Using such a system, only someone with one of a user’s public certificates could descramble a message’s content.

After

So, your data may be secure while it’s hurtling through cyberspace. But what if somebody breaks into your car, where you stupidly left your laptop, and makes off with it?

That’s where disk encryption comes in.

There’s some free disk encryption software floating around in the open-source community, but for most folks this, too, will cost some cash.

In effect, disk encryption scrambles everything stored to your computer, requiring a password or other approved recovery tool to decode it. So, if your computer falls into the wrong hands, all won’t be lost.

To summarize, there are lots of encryption and other security options out there. Some are quick, easy and free. Others are going to cost money for specialized software, hardware or both.

To find a level of security you’re comfortable with, start by poking around with security settings on your browser, e-mail client and favorite websites. Then consider whether you want professional help to get to the next level.

Do you have other favorite security tricks? Share them in the comments.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_technology/~3/HbBk-2guINo/index.html

(Time) — Trust us, we’re from Silicon Valley.

America’s largest Internet companies are tripping over themselves to bolster their public image following blockbuster disclosures about their role in the U.S. government’s controversial data-gathering program.

Ever since news reports suggested that major tech firms — including Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo — provide the National Security Agency (NSA) with unfettered or “direct” access to their servers, the companies have been waging an aggressive campaign to demonstrate that they’re not government stooges.

Now, several of the top Silicon Valley firms are engaged in a game of one-upmanship to show that they are the most transparent Internet company on the block.

The initial reports about “direct access,” as part of a classified U.S. intelligence system called Prism, have turned out to be wrong. But the Prism reports have highlighted long-standing privacy fears about how the largest U.S. tech companies handle their vast troves of user data. The Internet giants have come under scrutiny following reports that the NSA uses Prism to examine data — including e-mails, videos and online chats — that it collects via requests made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), one of the controversial laws at the heart of the current NSA-snooping furor.

Apple discloses data request numbers

Obama: NSA programs are transparent

Facebook admits role in NSA surveillance

Following the Prism leak, which was supplied to the Guardian and the Washington Post by whistle-blower Edward Snowden, Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo all issued statements — in strikingly similar legal language — denying that they give the NSA “direct” or unfettered access to their computer servers.

But the companies apparently felt the need to go further than those denials, and in recent days have engaged in a competition to demonstrate their commitment to transparency.

MORE: Google: We’re no NSA stooge, and we’ll prove it if the feds let us

Although Silicon Valley has roots in the U.S. military — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was central to the development of the Internet — today’s big tech companies are keen to demonstrate their independence from the government and often display a libertarian streak.

Many engineers in Silicon Valley are sympathetic to “hacker” culture. Above all, Silicon Valley tech titans are wary of losing the trust of consumers, which could endanger their businesses. These companies are no doubt well aware of the numerous more secure alternatives to their services, some of which enable users to roam the Internet anonymously.

Google kicked off the transparency battle last week when it asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller for permission to publish “aggregate numbers of national-security requests, including FISA disclosures — in terms of both the number we receive and their scope.”

That request was noteworthy because it was the first time Google had even acknowledged that it receives national-security FISA requests. Facebook and Microsoft quickly followed suit with similar requests. A Department of Justice spokesperson told TIME that the agency is in the process of reviewing the request.

Then, over the weekend, Facebook, which unlike Google has never published a transparency report, reached an agreement with the government allowing it to disclose data on U.S. information requests. Facebook said that for the six months ending Dec. 31, 2012, it received between 9,000 and 10,000 data requests, including criminal and national-security-related requests, covering between 18,000 and 19,000 accounts.

“We’re pleased that as a result of our discussions, we can now include in a transparency report all U.S. national-security-related requests (including FISA as well as National Security Letters) — which until now no company has been permitted to do,” Facebook general counsel Ted Ullyot said in a not-so-subtle dig at the company’s rivals.

Shortly thereafter, Microsoft released similar data, indicating that the company received between 6,000 and 7,000 criminal and national-security requests affecting between 31,000 and 32,000 consumer accounts.

“This only impacts a tiny fraction of Microsoft’s global customer base,” John Frank, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel, said in a blog post. “Transparency alone may not be enough to restore public confidence, but it’s a great place to start.”

On Monday, Apple joined the party and announced that from Dec. 1, 2012, to May 31, 2013, it received between 4,000 and 5,000 requests from U.S. law enforcement for customer data related to between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices, including both criminal investigations and national-security “matters.” Apple said it was releasing the data “in the interest of transparency.”

Yahoo followed late Monday, saying it received “between 12,000 and 13,000 requests, inclusive of criminal, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and other requests.”

MORE: Here’s why Google is buying Waze, a red-hot mobile traffic app, for $1 billion

Here’s the problem. According to the agreement Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Yahoo reached with the government, the companies were only permitted to release aggregate numbers of total U.S. data requests. Crucially, they were not permitted to separately break out the number of FISA requests.

For this reason, we don’t know if they received 50 FISA requests, 500 or 5,000. As a result, the disclosures, while laudable, skirt around the central issue of the NSA-snooping controversy, which is the nature and extent of the companies’ participation in secret U.S. national-security investigations.

“We believe the companies should be allowed to break out specific numbers for FISA requests,” said Amie Stepanovich, director of the Domestic Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based public-interest organization. “These numbers would provide nationwide transparency. We also believe that individual users targeted under FISA should receive notice that they were subject to surveillance, even after the fact, so they have the chance to contest the surveillance in court.”

For Google, which earlier this year was the first Internet company to disclose requests made for National Security Letters (NSLs) — a separate type of query than FISA requests — the arrangement struck by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Yahoo was not satisfactory.

“We have always believed that it’s important to differentiate between different types of government requests,” Google said in a statement. “We already publish criminal requests separately from National Security Letters. Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users. Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national-security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately.”

MORE: Viewpoint: Obama’s ‘patent troll’ reform: Why everyone should care

Twitter, which was not named in the NSA leak as a participant in the Prism program, quickly threw its support behind Google.

“We agree with Google,” Benjamin Lee, Twitter’s legal director, said in a Twitter message. “It’s important to be able to publish numbers of national-security requests — including FISA disclosures — separately.”

Thus, the contours of the transparency battle were drawn. On one side: Facebook, Microsoft and Apple. On the other, Google and Twitter.

For their part, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo said they would continue to urge the government to allow them to be more specific about national-security requests, including FISA requests. Facebook said it would continue “to push for even more transparency, so that our users around the world can understand how infrequently we are asked to provide user data on national-security grounds.” Microsoft said: “What we are permitted to publish continues to fall short of what is needed to help the community understand and debate these issues.”

But only Google has thus far resisted striking a deal with the government on the disclosure of data requests. On Monday, a Google spokesperson told TIME that the company had no update on its negotiations with the government concerning breaking out FISA requests.

copy 2012 TIME, Inc. TIME is a registered trademark of Time Inc. Used with permission.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_business/~3/ktdc4PQd0-I/index.html

Editor’s note: CNN’s John Defterios is reporting from the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum from June 20. Watch his show, Global Exchange, Sunday to Thursday 1900 UAE and follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) — Both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank gave their updated projections on the global economy ahead of this week’s G8 Summit in North Ireland. It was not pretty reading.

In a nutshell, according to the World Bank, it looks like this:

Global growth is stable, but slow. It is now forecast to reach 2.2% from last year’s 2.3%. The industrialized countries are barely sputtering along. The 34 countries that are members of the OECD will be just above 1% and the developing countries just over 5% this year and a hair over 5.5% through 2015.

But tucked into the World Bank “Global Economic Prospects” report is an interesting caveat; developing country performance would be much lower without the two pillars of emerging markets and the two anchor members of the BRICS: China and India.

READ MORE: Does Brazil deserve to be the ‘B’ in BRIC?

Who is China’s new leader?

Strip them out of the equation, according to the World Bank, and developing countries see their top line number come down to 3.6% this year — a full 1.5% lower. That spread should be consistent through 2015, according to the forecasts.

In China, economics influences politics

Two points were given more than their fair share of market and media coverage last week. The World Bank cut its projections from China quite severely to 7.7%, down more than 0.5%.

The view was circulated that the BRICS have lost their luster; in essence their better days are far behind them.

Andrew Burns, author of the World Bank report, said that investors should adjust their expectations.

There will be a “new normal for developing countries of slower growth,” Burns suggested. However, referring to the 2008 — 2009 global financial crisis, he said the overall environment “will be more stable because we put behind us the very serious risks.”

A game changer for India’s economy?

The past week of trading was a nasty one for emerging market countries. Their equity markets and currencies remain under pressure on fears that the U.S. Federal Reserve may alter course on its bond purchases and thereafter raise interest rates if necessary.

READ MORE: Building on the BRICs

Hotels focus on traveling women

“It is robust growth, strong growth, growth we should be happy with,” Burns said. “But well off the highs that we saw in the earlier part of the last decade.”

Perhaps what we should be doing, however, is looking at China and India. The two countries posted their worst performances in more than a decade last year, but the weight of two and a half billion people and their demand for commodities to fuel growth (even at a slower pace) are the developing world’s two pillars.

Rising demand in the emerging world has led to a 17.6% increase in South-South trade for the last decade. In another major shift, half of the products made in emerging markets now goes to partners in other emerging markets.

The emerging markets are less dependent on the developed world than ever before.

READ MORE: China spaceship blasts off

Managing Brazil’s growing economy

But this is an important period of transition which is far from complete. China is trying to move away from being an economy overly dependent on exports and government investment to one that benefits from domestic-led demand. India, other strategists suggest, needs to unleash growth by cutting the size and role of government.

Can Brazil handle the power of Twitter?

A decade ago, after investment bank Goldman Sachs authored the BRIC acronym, these countries were lulled into thinking that commodity demand would be a one way bet that would override a need to accelerate economic reforms.

READ MORE: World’s most powerful leaders meet

This is evident is both Brazil and Russia, which are struggling to recover after the financial crisis. Brazil, according to the World Bank, is projected to bounce back to 2.9% this year after struggling at below 1% in 2012. Russia’s growth is pegged at just 2% to 3% in 2013, despite North Sea Brent oil prices hovering at $100 a barrel for three years running.

Both of these countries should be experiencing a “halo effect” of sorts, with two things in common.

Putin makes surprising pitch in English

Both have landed the hosting of two global sporting events: The FIFA World Cups and Olympic Games between 2014 and 2018. They will be on the global radar for sporting fans, opening the way for substantial visitor growth.

Russian diplomat defends Assad support

But re-energizing these economies is not that simple.

Brazil is trying to contain a protest movement with many feeling alienated by the infrastructure buildout and rising cost of transport. Last autumn, Russians took to the streets again frustrated they are not seeing the fruits of middle income growth.

The games may begin from 2014, but both these countries may miss the full benefits of golden opportunities to promote the next wave of growth.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_business/~3/HMDaujFgouE/index.html

Macau (CNN) — Triad attacks. Prostitute calling cards. Illicit money flows.

This is the dark underbelly of Macau — Asia’s gambling capital. The only Chinese territory where casinos are permitted, the city has transformed itself in little more than a decade from a sleepy backwater to a neon-lit monument to China’s passion for gambling.

Gambling revenues in the city surpassed Las Vegas in 2006 and are now six times greater. But the former Portuguese colony’s dramatic rise has come at a cost, with many in Macau questioning whether growth has been too fast and furious.

“You really don’t know whether society as a whole has benefited,” said Samuel Huang, an associate professor in gambling studies at the Macau Polytechnic Institute.

Portuguese lawyer Jorge Menezes, 47, has experienced first hand the city’s more brutal side.

Last month, he was attacked in broad daylight by two men as he walked his five-year-old son to pre-school in what he believes was an intimidation attempt linked to his work as a lawyer.

“I was walking with my son and suddenly I felt a huge blow on the back of my head,” he told CNN from his office just a block away from where the attack took place.

“I turned around, already bleeding, and he threw another blow toward my head and then a second guy came at me from behind.

“I couldn’t run away because my son was there. I needed to protect him.”

Menezes, who injured his wrist and required stitches to his head, said the two assailants each had a brick tied to one of their hands.

“I was told it’s a technique used by mafioso in mainland China, because they can carry it without being seen as a weapon.”

‘Broken Tooth’ released from prison

Macau’s motorcycles are going electric

Going green at Asia’s biggest resort

Starwood’s biggest gamble in Macau

A spokesman for Macau’s Public Security Police, confirmed that the lawyer was attacked by two Chinese men brandishing hard objects who later fled. They added the case was under investigation.

In the run-up to the city’s return to China, gang violence was commonplace, claiming the lives of some 37 people in 1999 alone — though violent crime became rarer as the city’s gaming market boomed.

However, some recent cases have unsettled residents. In 2012, a longtime operator of VIP casino junkets, Ng Man-sun, was beaten by six men in his hotel in what was reportedly a dispute with his ex-lover.

The city also feared a return to violence after the release of a notorious gangster known as Wan Kuok-kio or “Broken Tooth” in December after 15 years in prison.

WATCH: ‘Broken Tooth’ released from prison

Menezes says he rarely goes out to socialize and he cannot think of a personal motive for the attack: “I have no doubt that it’s linked to work. It is definitely an attempt to intimidate me or put me out of action for a few months.

“I was working on cases that could bring direct or collateral damage — collateral in the sense that there are third parties that are affected by what I am doing,” he said, declining to say who he thought was behind the attack.

As a precaution, he has recruited a security guard cum secretary, but Menezes says he intends to stay put and continue representing his clients.

Steve Vickers, a former intelligence officer with the Hong Kong police and a specialist in triad activities, claimed Macau’s gaming sector retains deep ties to organized crime.

“The scene has changed over the past 10 years as the pie has vastly increased,” said Vickers, who now runs a specialist risk mitigation and corporate intelligence consultancy SVA. “It’s not the cowboy town it was when Broken Tooth was running around.

“The big boys have moved in … and they do not want visible street fights, with people being beaten up because it’s bad for business and brings attention.”

By and large, Macau remains a safe place with 182 violent crimes reported in the first three months of this year, up one from the same period a year earlier, according to figures from the Secretary for Security. The city is home to 500,000 people, while Macau’s three dozen casinos attract more than 28 million visitors a year.

Vickers says that while the city’s big casinos, some owned by U.S. tycoons Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson, operate correctly and legally, they work in a “messy environment.”

They are reliant on income from high rollers and these VIPs are usually brought in from China by junket operators.

“The junkets are an integral part of the gaming scene and they facilitate the transfer of funds, the finding of the high rollers and they facilitate the breaching of Chinese capital controls.

“You won’t find their names on the front (door) but the hard reality is that Chinese junkets are largely controlled by triad societies.”

China tightly controls the amount of money individuals can take out of the country, with a limit of 20,000 yuan ($3,262) per day and citizens traveling to Macau, which is considered a special administrative region, are subject to these limits.

However, China has turned a blind eye to the abuse of capital controls, said Vickers although he added, this could change as the country’s new leaders look to crack down on corruption amid worries about officials funneling money through the city.

Macau government officials did not immediately respond to a request from CNN for comment.

READ: Insider Guide: Best of Macau

The triads are also said to be involved in prostitution rings, another bone of contention for local Macau residents — although prostitution is not illegal.

Macau is on a U.S. State Department watch list for human trafficking and according to the 2012 report, criminal syndicates are involved in recruitment.

It says many women fall prey to false advertisements for casino jobs but upon arrival are forced into prostitution.

Many of the city’s sidewalks and underpasses are littered with prostitutes’ calling cards and fliers for saunas and pole dancing clubs.

“I don’t know how to explain this to my children,” said Huang at the Macau Polytechnic Institute.

Authorities are keen to diversify Macau’s appeal and turn the city into a broader entertainment destination that attracts families and not just casino goers.

New resorts boast attractions like wave pools, fake beaches and high-class dining but there’s little evidence that sales of spa treatments and slap-up meals will ever begin to approach revenue from the gambling tables.

“I don’t think promoting a more family-friendly environment will be easy,” said Huang.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_business/~3/BScBJZ-9uSQ/index.html

Beirut, Lebanon (CNN) — The opening theme’s the same and the concept’s no different, but “Arab Idol” is much more than just a popular singing competition.

Now in its second season, the Middle Eastern version of “American Idol” is the feel-good story of the year. At a time when the Arab world is so concerned about conflicts growing and sectarianism increasing, the show has done the near impossible: It’s given the troubled region something to smile about.

“You should vote for, only for music,” a grinning and relaxed Ahmad Jamal says during rehearsal.

“Not for nationality, not for religion, not for political issues,” adds the 25-year-old Egyptian contestant. “You just vote for music and the one you love, the one you want to be a star.”

Palestinian ‘Arab Idol’ finalist sings

It’s a sentiment echoed by other contestants when explaining the popularity of the show and how lucky they feel to be a part of it.

Take Farah Youssef, for example. The 25-year-old almost didn’t make it out of Syria. Her car was caught in the middle of a shootout as she left Damascus to audition in Beirut.

Watching her practice before the show, you’d never guess the amount of stress she’s under. Frankly, she seems quite happy while hitting the high notes.

As it turns out, the pressure of performing is nothing compared with how overcome she becomes when she thinks and talks about the civil war back home.

“I see all that stuff happening in my country,” she says. “It’s kind of devastating.”

Her words trail off as she is overcome with emotion.

“I’m sorry,” she says as she starts to cry. “The people, they have no future. I thank my God that I’m here, I’m building myself up, I’m trying to be good. I’m trying to make people love one another again.”

Suddenly, as if remembering the healing power of music, she declares, “And actually I feel like I’m doing a good job.”

Clearly the show’s millions of loyal viewers believe so too, as Youssef has advanced to “Arab Idol’s” finale, which airs this weekend.

But she has stiff competition from fan favorite Mohamad Assaf, also a finalist — one who’s become a heartthrob and a hero. Making the difficult journey out of Gaza, the 23-year-old Palestinian barely made it to the tryouts in Cairo.

READ: ‘Arab Idol’s’ first contestant from Gaza grabs spotlight

When he arrived at a hotel for the tryouts, he was late and had to jump over a wall and evade security to enter the venue.

“There was a man who gave me his number — who sacrificed his place for my sake when he heard my voice,” Assaf recalls.

“I still ask myself how all this happened.”

Nicknamed “The Rocket,” Assaf’s on a fast track to stardom, but the patriotic Palestinian also wants to inspire his people.

“Anybody who has hope for a better future, and who has dreams and ambitions to make his dreams a reality, will make it,” he says confidently.

“Arab Idol” Executive Producer Alex Meouchy couldn’t be happier about the effect the show’s having.

“I’m very proud of the success of the show,” he says. “I’m very proud that we were able to achieve something that all of the Arab world was able to unite around.”

Broadcast on the MBC1 network, the show’s stellar ratings have increased all season long. “Arab Idol” is now considered a sensation.

On the show, contestants, regardless of their religious or cultural background, sing songs from all over the region. Meouchy explains how the diversity on display has made the show even more popular:

“An Egyptian (contestant) would come and say I want to sing in Lebanese (dialect),” he says, “and I want to sing in Gulf dialect and it’s really quite beautiful how … the unity of the Arab world was shown in the show through the power of songs and entertainment.”

This season even featured the show’s first Kurdish contestant, Parwas Hussein.

Even the show’s panel of judges, made up of music superstars of the Arab world, prefers to be positive.

“We are the real leader now,” explains head judge Ragheb Alama, known as the “Elvis of Lebanon.” “People are talking to us and watching us. You know, today, two (regional) presidents called me and talked to me about this program, about the contestants.”

“You cannot imagine how this makes me feel that we are the real medicine,” says Alama, “the real smile between the sad environments.”

Perhaps it’s all summed up best by former Lebanese contestant Ziad Khoury.

“We’re sending a message and unifying the Arab people,” the beaming 25-year-old says. “A message of happiness and peace.”

Here, they’ve decided to focus on excellence rather than extremism, to highlight music instead of misery.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/world/meast/arab-idol/index.html?eref=edition

Washington (CNN) — An agreement was reached Saturday for handing over control of a U.S.-run prison near Bagram Air Base to Afghan authorities, the Pentagon said.

Under the agreement between Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the United States will transfer control of Parwan prison on Monday, according to a statement released by the Pentagon.

The detention facility has been a sticking point between U.S. and Afghan authorities, and tensions over the facility re-emerged this month with sharp words from Karzai that the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force called “inflammatory.”

A Pentagon spokesman said Hagel and Karzai spoke by phone shortly after the deal was reached on the prison.

“The secretary welcomed President Karzai’s commitment that the transfer will be carried out in a way that ensures the safety of the Afghan people and coalition forces by keeping dangerous individuals detained in a secure and humane manner in accordance with Afghan law,” spokesman George Little said.

Last March, U.S. and Afghan authorities agreed on a plan to hand over the prison and detainees within six months.

But in September, the United States “paused” the transfer of detainees, which include suspected Taliban militants and insurgents.

The U.S. military has not publicly discussed the specifics of the dispute. But a military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told CNN last year that the United States was holding on to several detainees over concerns about whether Afghan authorities will properly handle their cases and under what circumstances they might be released.

Karzai has been adamant that all prisoners be under Afghan control. Last yea, he called the U.S. failure to hand over all detainees at the facility a “serious breach” in the deal outlining the transfer of power from U.S. forces to Afghanistan.

Tensions between the NATO-led coalition forces — especially those from the United States — and Karzai have escalated since a bomb blast in Kabul earlier this month that killed nine people.

Karzai said afterward that there are “ongoing daily talks between Taliban, American and foreigners in Europe and in the Gulf states.”

The comment effectively claimed the United States was trying to foment continued violence inside Afghanistan, and it was quickly denounced by NATO and U.S. officials.

Some experts say Karzai’s comments have been fueled by frustration over the detention facility not being handed over, which he views as an attack on his country’s sovereignty.

In an e-mail this month to top commanders, U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, commander of ISAF, warned of new risks of attacks due to rising tensions between NATO forces and the Afghan president, an ISAF official told CNN.

Karzai’s recent statements “could be a catalyst for some to lash out against our forces — he may also issue orders that put our forces at risk,” Dunford said.

Barbara Starr reported from Washington and Chelsea J. Carter reported from Atlanta. CNN’s Jake Tapper contributed to this report.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/23/world/asia/afghanistan-prison-handover/index.html?eref=edition

Editor’s note: Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of “Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden — From 9/11 to Abbottabad,” the basis for the HBO documentary “Manhunt” that will be shown on CNN at 9 p.m. ET Monday.

Washington (CNN) — In the past few weeks, we’ve seen a British soldier hacked to death with a meat cleaver on the streets of London and bombers blowing up spectators at the Boston Marathon.

On the surface, terrorism is alive and well.

So how should the United States react to these continuing threats?

For the first time on Thursday, President Obama laid out the full scope of his proposed counterterrorism strategy, and it boiled down to this: George W. Bush’s endless war on terror is over.

And that’s appropriate, since the enemy Bush went to war with after September 11 has largely been defeated.

Obama’s speech at the National Defense University in Washington was designed to lay the political groundwork to wind down America’s longest war, the war that began when al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon 12 years ago.

Thursday’s speech was the first time Obama had delivered an overarching framework for how to conceptualize the conflict that has defined U.S. national security policy since 9/11.

Obama defends secret drone program

King: Obama’s tone was wrong

President Obama interrupted by heckler

CNN Explains: Drones

Other speeches by Obama have focused on aspects of that conflict, such as Guantanamo and the Afghan war. But no speech has made such an expansive examination of the war against al Qaeda and its allies in all its manifestations, from drone strikes to detention policies to a clear-eyed assessment of the scope of the threats posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as by those “homegrown” extremists who attacked the Boston Marathon in April.

Much of the coverage of the speech has centered on the measures the president outlined to impose greater constraints on CIA drone strikes and to try to hasten the eventual closing of Guantanamo.

But the most significant aspect of the speech was the president’s case that the “perpetual wartime footing” and “boundless war on terror” that has permeated so much of American life since 9/11 should come to an end.

Obama argued that the time has come to redefine the kind of conflict that the United States is engaged in: “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us.”

This is why the president focused part of his speech on a discussion of the seemingly arcane Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed days after 9/11 and that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and its Taliban allies.

Few, if any, in Congress who voted for the authorization understood at the time that they were voting for a virtual blank check that has provided the legal basis for more than a decade of war. It is a war that has expanded in recent years to other countries in the Middle East and Africa, such as Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has engaged in covert military operations against al Qaeda-affiliated groups.

Theoretically, when U.S. combat troops finally withdraw from Afghanistan in December 2014, the authorization should simply expire, and the nation will no longer be at war. After all, once combat operations are over in Afghanistan, why would you want to keep in place an authorization for a permanent war?

However, there are now some in Congress who would like to expand the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force beyond its present parameters to include military operations against terrorist groups that were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, which could prolong America’s wars indefinitely and add additional terrorist groups to the United States’ list of enemies it is at war with.

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for instance, last month called for an expansion of the scope of the authorization.

Obama made it quite clear in his Thursday speech that he would oppose such an expansion, saying he hopes instead to “ultimately repeal the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further.”

In short, Obama intends to end a seemingly endless war.

That’s because, according to Obama, “the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on the path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us.”

On Thursday, Obama asserted (in my view, correctly) that what remains of the terrorist threat, while significant and persistent, is nothing on the scale of the al Qaeda organization that launched the 9/11 operation and instead consists of “less capable al Qaeda affiliates, threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad, homegrown extremists.”

These threats, the president further asserted, can be managed by carefully targeted drone strikes overseas and efforts to counter extremist ideology at home and do not require some kind of broader war.

Obama is also looking to his legacy and the presidents who will follow him and is trying to begin to create the public consensus and legal framework that will help to ensure that the United States isn’t “drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.”

Obama clearly hopes to leave office in 2016 as the commander in chief who finally ended America’s longest war.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/24/opinion/bergen-end-of-terror-war/index.html?eref=edition

(CNN) — Hope flickered in war-torn Afghanistan on Tuesday as national security forces formally took over security leadership and peace talks with the Taliban are now in the works.

NATO-led troops transferred security responsibility to Afghan forces. The United States and an Afghan government group dedicated to peace and reconciliation will hold talks with the Taliban militant group in Qatar.

“I wish a long-term peace in Afghanistan,” Afghan President Harmid Karzai told his troops at a handover ceremony in Kabul.

But a senior U.S. official said reconciliation is likely to be “long, complex and messy” because trust between Afghans and the Taliban is extremely low.

The latest moves could portend a hopeful chapter in the long and costly Afghan conflict. What do these developments mean for Afghanistan and the United States? Here are some key questions that will be asked in the coming months:

Pakistan’s pivotal role in Taliban talks

Afghan government takes over security

Inside a firefight with the Taliban

Born solely to serve others

1. Are the Afghan troops up to the task?

There are certainly doubts.

A Pentagon review in December found that only one of 23 Afghan army brigades was capable of functioning on its own.

Meanwhile, literacy rates are low, desertion rates are high, and many deserters have joined the insurgency. There also have been a troubling number of “green-on-blue” attacks: Afghan troops attacking their American comrades.

But then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke positively about the progress Afghans had made in growing their army, reducing violence and becoming more self-sufficient. At the time, Afghan forces were leading nearly 90% of operations across the country.

“We’re on the right path to give (Afghanistan) the opportunity to govern itself,” Panetta said.

Karzai has said he welcomes the U.S. troop withdrawal and insists his army can defend the country against the Taliban.

“It is exactly our job to deal with it, and we are capable of dealing with it,” Karzai said during an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

2. What are the conditions for peace?

Karzai seems eager to resume stalled peace talks with the Taliban and include them in the political process.

The High Peace Council of Afghanistan — a government group devoted to reconciliation and peace — will go to Qatar and participate in talks with the Taliban, Karzai said Tuesday.

The United States will have a first formal meeting soon in Doha, Qatar, after the Afghans and Taliban huddle, senior administration officials said. The meetings coincide with the Taliban opening an office in the Gulf nation of Qatar.

For their part, the Taliban told reporters in Doha on Tuesday that they want to improve relations with the world. They are calling themselves the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”

The Taliban back “supporting a political process and a peaceful resolution that will bring an end to the occupation in Afghanistan and establishing an Islamic and independent government in it” and forging “true security,” a representative said.

At the same time, the Taliban representative advocated the idea of political resistance.

The United States and Afghanistan have several conditions the Taliban ultimately need to meet for a peace deal — breaking ties with al Qaeda, ending violence and accepting the Afghan Constitution, including sections on women’s rights, senior administration officials told reporters Tuesday.

Conditions also were outlined by the High Peace Council, with one senior official saying there was no place for violence while talks are ongoing. “We are hoping the (number of) Taliban attacks go down or even stop after we start talks,” the official said.

The first meeting between the United States and Taliban is expected to be an exchange of agendas and what each side wants to talk about, followed by another meeting in a week or two.

One of the administration officials said foremost on the U.S. mind is hearing how the Taliban are going to cut ties with al Qaeda and urging them to talk seriously with the Afghan government. Exchange of detainees are expected to be on the agenda — including Bowe Bergdahl — the U.S. soldier believed to be in militant captivity.

“Peace is not at hand,” another senior official cautioned, adding there is “no guarantee this will happen quickly if at all.”

3. How big a threat do the Taliban still pose?

The Taliban are still “resilient and determined,” according to a recent Pentagon report, and pose a major security threat.

The Taliban continue to carry out high-profile attacks in the capital, Kabul, even targeting the Afghan Supreme Court during a suicide attack in June. Another strike targeted a building near Kabul airport.

On Tuesday, a suicide bomber attacked the convoy of Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, a member of parliament, killing three people and wounding 21 others. Three bodyguards were among the injured. Mohaqiq — a Shiite and an ethnic Hazara — is a member of Afghanistan’s political opposition.

The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was sheltering al Qaeda when the terror network launched attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. The next month, the United States cranked up military operations that led to the toppling of the Taliban government.

Ever since, international forces have been fighting radical Islamic militants in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.

4. What are the biggest challenges?

The main fear among Afghans is that the country could revert to another civil war once the United States withdraws its combat troops.

“Some people we’ve spoken to sort of take it for granted that there’s going to be a civil war when the United States leaves,” said CNN’s Erin Burnett on a trip last year to Afghanistan. “It happened before when the Soviet Union left (in 1989).”

Above all, Karzai said the Afghan army needs the tools to battle the insurgents, namely more equipment and firepower. He came to the Pentagon in January with a wish list asking for more helicopters, drones and other hardware, according to a senior defense official.

“We need an air force. We need air mobility,” Karzai told Amanpour. “We need proper mechanized forces. We need, you know, armored vehicles and tanks and all that.”

Retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, once America’s top commander in Afghanistan, said the Afghan people are “terrified because they think they have something to lose.”

“There has been progress made,” he said. “But they’re afraid that if we completely abandon them in 2014, as they perceive we did in 1989, (things) would all go back.”

5. What support will the United States and allies provide?

American forces, now at about 66,000, are expected to dip to 32,000 by the end of the year and further throughout 2014.

The plan is to withdraw all combat troops but keep a residual force in the country to help train Afghans and carry out counterterrorism operations when needed.

The size of that force is still being discussed.

Gen. John Allen, the former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, recommended between 6,000 and 15,000 troops. But that figure was lowered to a range between 2,500 and 9,000, according to a defense official.

The United States and NATO have pledged to continue to support and train Afghan forces in what NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen deems a “new relationship,” starting in 2015.

Acknowledging that there is still much to do in the interim 18 months, Rasmussen said, “Today, our shared goal is in sight.”

CNN’s Ed Payne and Roba Alhenawi contributed to this report.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/world/asia/afghanistan-handover/index.html?eref=edition

(CNN) — Everything was going fine, until the bill came.

But it wasn’t the amount on the check that angered Joseph Gibson, who had stopped at a St. Louis sports bar to chow down.

It was a line on the special order section for his young son that set him off.

Under “1 — Wing Sauce” the receipt read: “F—in Needy Kids.”

The name of the bar? Friendly’s.

Denny Domachowski, the general manager of Friendly’s Sports Bar and Grill, told CNN the waitress meant it as a joke and intended to delete it before handing the bill to Gibson. She’s been reprimanded, he said.

“I apologized to them, and he called later and I apologized again,” Domachowski said.

Gibson, who had a soda and chicken dinner, was still offended.

Snarky quip, no tip: Receipt goes viral

He posted a picture of the receipt to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Facebook page. He wrote that he was upset by the explanation that it just a joke among co-workers.

“So customers with children are a joke? This place isn’t so friendly. I got nowhere with management,” he wrote.

Domachowski explained that he made a Father’s Day exception for Gibson to bring in a child even though the bar was for patrons 21 and older.

The restaurant has no children’s menu so the waitress had to manually type in the boy’s order of one chicken leg.

“The incident shouldn’t have happened, and I made sure she understands that,” he said. “She didn’t mean to offend the gentleman and his son. She had a good experience with them as customers. She was just in a hurry and forgot to take that off.”

He added that he doesn’t understand why Gibson is “making a mountain of a mole hill.”

But he conceded. “I wouldn’t want anyone calling my granddaughter, who is four, that.”

Papa John’s receipt with racial slur

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/us/missouri-restaurant-receipt-expletive/index.html?eref=edition