FROM: STATE DEPARTMENT
Keynote Address: 2014 Gulf of Aden Regional Counterterrorism Forum
Remarks
Geeta Pasi
U.S. Ambassador to Djibouti
Djibouti, Djibouti
February 3, 2014
Good morning. I’d like to thank the Government of Djibouti for hosting this conference in Djibouti and the U.S. State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau for funding and organizing the conference. I would also like to thank Ms. Mako Hassan and everyone at ATTA for doing such an outstanding job of getting all the participants here and for helping to facilitate this forum. This forum – and forums like it – are increasingly important as they enable the building of relationships and enhance a shared understanding of best practices as we all work together to achieve our collective goals – a transnational response to a transnational threat.
The Gulf of Aden Regional Counterterrorism Forum, which first convened in Sana’a, Yemen last April, was created out of an understanding of the common threat across the borders of those represented here today. This week’s forum comes at a pivotal time. We’ve made progress with our collective strategic counterterrorism efforts, but a great deal of work remains to be done.
The preeminent security threat to the United States continues to be from al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents around the world. As we work to counter this threat over the long term, the United States is committed to helping build partner nation capabilities and to working with our partners to counter the murderous ideology that continues to incite indiscriminate violence around the world. Defeating a terrorist network requires us to work together to disrupt criminal and terrorist financial networks, strengthen rule of law institutions while respecting human rights, address recruitment, and eliminate the safe havens that protect and facilitate this activity. We need to take on violent extremist ideology and diminish its appeal.
Today, I’d like to describe briefly the global threat environment, honing in on the threats specific to the countries represented here today, and then outline some of the bilateral and regional approaches we are using to meet long-term challenges.
The Global Threat Environment
Through the actions of the United States and others, many senior al-Qai’da leaders have been removed from the battlefield or are facing trial. The ability of AQ’s senior leadership to direct the activities and attacks of its affiliates has diminished, as its leaders focus their energies on evading capture. At the same time, AQ affiliates in this region and elsewhere have grown more independent, have become increasingly active, and are increasingly setting their own goals and specifying their own targets.
As avenues previously open to these and other violent extremist organizations for receiving and sending funds have become more difficult to access, several groups have engaged in kidnapping for ransom and other criminal activities, and thus have also increased their financial independence. Though AQ affiliates still seek to attack targets abroad, they seem more inclined to focus on smaller scale attacks closer to their home base.
Before discussing the Gulf of Aden region, I’d like to mention briefly the tumultuous events of the past three-plus years in the Middle East and North Africa, which have complicated the counterterrorism picture. Arms proliferation in the wake of the revolution in Libya and civil and political strife in Mali presented terrorists with new opportunities to take advantage of regional instability. Foreign fighters from Europe, North Africa, and South Asia have traveled to Syria to join the fight with the Nusrah Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Meanwhile, in West Africa, we are seeing a loosely organized collection of factions known as Boko Haram – some of them with ties to al-Qa’ida in the Maghreb – exploiting the grievances of northern Nigerians to gain recruits and public sympathy. The number and sophistication of Boko Haram’s attacks are increasing, and while the group focuses principally on local Nigerian issues and actors, there is evidence that it is developing financial and training links with other violent extremists in West Africa.
In the Gulf of Aden region, two al-Qa’ida affiliates foster regional instability through their brutal terrorist tactics. These are al-Qa’ida in the Arabian
Peninsula - AQAP – based in Yemen and al-Shabaab based in Somalia.
In Yemen, the fight against AQAP is a work in progress. We commend the Yemeni people on the January 25 conclusion of the National Dialogue Conference and support efforts toward full implementation of the political transition initiative. Yemen illustrates the value of a comprehensive approach to countering terrorism. While Yemeni security forces are increasing their capacity to combat terror and taking actions to mitigate threats, the international community is assisting the Yemeni government’s efforts to address the needs of the Yemeni people by supporting the political transition and delivering humanitarian and economic aid. In this endeavor, the United States is working closely with the Friends of Yemen group, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the international community.
Since this forum last met in Sana’a, Somalia has marked more than one year since the end of its own political transition. The recent formation of a new cabinet in Mogadishu, the peaceful elections and transition of power in Puntland in January, the agreement between the central government and the Interim Jubaland Administration last August, and the ongoing dialogue between Somaliland and Federal Government of Somalia are hopeful signs of a new era in this conflict-stricken country. We remain committed to assisting Somalia in the difficult work to establish good governance and to provide opportunity and security for all Somali people.
The combined efforts of the Somali National Security Forces and AMISOM against al-Shabaab – with strong financial support and training from Western partners –are establishing the security conditions necessary for Somalia’s government to operate. During the past year, al-Shabaab proved time and time again through its suicide attacks and frequent bombings that it does not stand with the Somali people. Its September 2013 siege on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi that targeted civilians – including women and children -- demonstrated again that it remains a threat to the entire region. But we know that al-Shabaab is a fractured organization fighting for relevance in a country that is showing signs of new life. We are confident that the recently authorized AMISOM troop increase will increase the pressure on al-Shabaab and are hopeful that progress by the central government, including increased collaboration with the regions of Somalia and an extension of public services will show all Somalis that a new day has dawned.
I would be remiss not to mention Djibouti, the country in which I have the pleasure of serving as U.S. ambassador. Even though it does not face the same direct threat as Somalia or Yemen, it is in a tough neighborhood and faces many challenges. Djibouti has demonstrated itself as a force for peace and stability in the region and a staunch ally in the fight against terrorism. I want to thank Djibouti for its troop deployment to Somalia as part of AMISOM. Djiboutian troops have played a crucial role in stabilizing areas of Somalia where they are deployed. Given its location along the border with Somalia and just across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, Djibouti has undertaken efforts to increase training its police and military forces and has increased its emphasis at border control points to screen for potential security threats. In addition, as most of you already know, Djibouti is the host of Camp Lemonnier, which serves as headquarters to approximately 4,000 U.S. troops, including the Combined Joint Task Force for the Horn of Africa. I want to publicly extend thanks to the Government of Djibouti for their strong partnership and leadership. I should also note that we will have the privilege of hearing from the commander of the U.S. Combined Joint Task Force for the Horn of Africa, General Wayne Grigsby, tomorrow during our session on the role of the military in counterterrorism.
What we’re doing
Now that we have examined the changing landscape of terrorism in the world, we have to ask ourselves the question – how do we deal with this changing security environment?
First, we need to keep doing what we know works: continue to use our military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets to go after terrorist groups that threaten our collective security.
At the same time, we need to identify the factors that, despite our successes, are supporting the continued vitality of terrorist organizations and develop the innovative and cross-cutting, rule of law-based strategies that will help cut off that support. Violent extremism is a dynamic, adaptable phenomenon that is highly dependent on local political, social, and economic circumstances. We know that terrorist movements thrive on state failure, political upheaval and poor governance, among other factors. They are opportunistic – adapting quickly to exploit openings presented by political transitions and upheavals.
The United States is focused on two key strategic areas: 1) capacity building, so that countries can do a better job themselves of dealing with the threats within their own borders and regions; and 2) strengthening our work in countering violent extremism – or CVE. The goal of CVE is to deny terrorist groups new recruits, by: providing positive alternatives to communities most at risk of recruitment and radicalization to violence; countering terrorist narratives and the violent extremist worldview; and building the capacity of governments and civil society to counter violent extremism.
Working with our partners, both bilaterally and multilateral is crucial. We cannot do this alone. So, with the goal of building an international counterterrorism architecture for 21st century threats, the United States, together with 28 partner countries and the European Union, launched the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) in 2011. The Forum seeks to counter violent extremism and strengthen civilian institutions that are essential for addressing not only terrorism, but related transnational security threats. It provides a valuable framework for practitioners and policymakers to share expertise, challenges, and good practices on dealing with this shared threat and deliver rule of law-based assistance so partners—particularly in countries in transition to democracy—can simultaneously deal with the threats as they evolve and protect the human rights of their citizens.
In a relatively short time, the GCTF has made its mark, having already mobilized more than $230 million in member funds and set in motion two international training centers to provide platforms for sustainable training on countering violent extremism and strengthening rule-of-law institutions. It has developed practical guidance for all countries to follow in the areas of rule of law, kidnapping for ransom, and prison de-radicalization and disengagement.
I know that representatives from each of your countries, perhaps even some of you, have participated in activities organized by the Forum’s Horn of Africa Region Working Group, and I expect that you have been able to benefit from the expertise that is shared within and good practices developed through the GCTF. We will discuss some of those best practices during the rest of this week’s meetings. We also hope that your governments will participate in next meeting of the GCTF’s Horn of Africa Working Group in Nairobi on 12-13 March, where the focus will be on strengthening cooperation and capacities in the region on law enforcement and CVE.
On the bilateral front, the U.S. Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) program continues to engage with each of your countries to build capacity in a wide spectrum of counterterrorism skills, from bomb detection, to crime scene investigation, to border, aviation, and cyber security. ATA, offered courses, seminars, and consultations to roughly 11,000 participants from over 50 countries in 2013, including hundreds of security and law enforcement officials in Djibouti, Somalia, and Yemen.
We have also worked closely with our partners across the globe, including representatives from Djibouti, Somalia and Yemen, to make important progress in safeguarding our shared financial system against those who wish to exploit it. Since 2010, our Counterterrorism Finance Program has trained more than 5,400 key specialists in governments and financial institutions throughout the world. We are proud to be able to partner with you in the struggle to combat terrorist financing.
Through the Terrorist Interdiction Program (TIP), the Department enhances border security capabilities for partner nations at risk of terrorist activity – by providing a computerized screening-list system, the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (PISCES). As of February 2014, government authorities in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda manage and operate a total of 38 PISCES installations at airports, seaports, and land borders to screen, identify, and deter terrorist travelers. Of these 38 PISCES installations, 35 operate biometric screening, with fingerprints, as part of primary processing. And across the Gulf of Aden, Yemen operates 19 PISCES installations.
To contest the terrorist narrative, President Obama established the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) in 2010. CSCC’s Digital Outreach Team counters violent extremist propaganda online every day in Arabic, Punjabi, Somali, and Urdu. CSCC’s activities have elicited vigorous responses from violent extremist ideologues, indicating that they view CSCC’s work as a threat to their own messaging efforts.
The shifting terrorism landscape makes local CVE efforts all the more important. In 2013, on the margins of the UN General Assembly, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced the Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience – the first-ever public-private global fund to support local, grassroots efforts to counter violent extremism in all of its forms and manifestations. It is anticipated that the Fund will raise more than $200 million over the next 10 years to support local CVE causes.
Looking Forward
Building new partnerships, strengthening existing partnerships, and helping other countries foster collaborative relationships with partner nations are all vital to our counterterrorism efforts. This is one of the reasons we organized this conference. We have seen in many places how regional coalitions and organizations can play a critical role in addressing security challenges and threats. Examples of these partnerships include the international response in northern Mali, the response of AMISOM in Somalia, and regional assistance from the Gulf Cooperation Council states in Yemen.
While the people of the Gulf of Aden region will determine their own course, the United States can provide a wide variety of advice and assistance to civilian institutions, with a particular focus on countries transitioning from emergency counterterrorism laws to a rule-of-law framework. Ultimately, counterterrorism and rule of law goals are closely aligned and reinforce one another. It is important that, in our zeal to protect our citizens, we not weaken their legal rights and protections.
This is one of the reasons we have shaped the agenda for this week’s Forum as we have. We want to focus this week on the rule of law in counterterrorism efforts, including the role of legal frameworks, law enforcement and the military among other issues. We have designed the sessions so that you can hear from experts on each of the topics but also have plenty of time to engage in lively discussion amongst yourselves about how these roles realistically play out in each of your countries. Our goal is for you to build deeper relationships with your colleagues so you can rely on each other in the future, to share experiences and develop new ideas that help us all counter the constantly evolving threats that face us each day.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I hope the rest of the Forum is productive.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
WATCHING EDNA, STUBBORN FLETCHER FROM SPACE
Image Credit: NRL/NOAA
FROM: NASA
NASA Satellite Catches Australia's Newborn Tropical Storm Edna and Stubborn Fletcher
Northeastern Australia has been watching two tropical low pressure areas over the last several days, and NASA's Aqua satellite captured both in one infrared image. Tropical Storm Edna developed on February 4, while Fletcher, known also as System 94P continued to have a medium chance for development.
On February 3 at 15:53 UTC/10:53 a.m. EST, NASA's Aqua satellite passed over Queensland, Australia and the AIRS or Atmospheric Infrared Sounder instrument captured infrared data on both storms. System 94P/Fletcher was in the Gulf of Carpentaria and over the Northwest region of
Queensland, while newborn Edna formed in the South Pacific Ocean east of Queensland.
Tropical Storm Edna Moving Toward New Caledonia
System 93P strengthened between February 3 and 4 into Tropical Depression 12P and then Tropical Storm Edna, northwest New Caledonia. By 1500 UTC/10 a.m. EST Edna was about 392 nautical miles northwest of New Caledonia, near 17.2 south latitude and 161.5 east longitude. Edna had maximum sustained winds near 35 knots/40 mph/62 kph. It was moving to the southeast at 19 knots/21.8 mph/35.1 kph.
NASA's AIRS data showed very cold cloud top temperatures in powerful thunderstorms within Edna that have the potential for heavy rainfall. Infrared data also showed that Edna's circulation has consolidated and convection has deepened/strengthened with bands of thunderstorms, mostly north of the center, were wrapping more tightly into the low-level center of circulation.
AIRS data also showed that sea surface temperatures were around 28C/82.4F, warm enough to contribute to strengthening the system. Sea surface temperatures need to be at least 26.6C/80F in order for a tropical cyclone to maintain intensity. Warmer temperatures than that can help in increased evaporation with the formation of thunderstorms that make up a tropical cyclone. However, as Edna continues tracking southward, the storm will run into cooler sea surface temperatures that will squelch any significant intensification.
Text credit: Rob Gutro
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
PRESS STATEMENT ON DEPARTURE OF U.S. AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA
FROM: STATE DEPARTMENT
Ambassador McFaul's Departure from Russia
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 4, 2014
I join President Obama in expressing my deep gratitude to one of our very best, Ambassador Mike McFaul, for his exemplary service as U.S. Ambassador to Russia. After five years promoting U.S.-Russian relations, and the past seven months separated from his family, I understand Mike’s desire to return home to California. We will all miss Mike at the State Department, but we know he’ll just be a phone call or a tweet away.
In my time as Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and now as Secretary, I’ve learned firsthand that Mike McFaul isn’t just exceptionally talented, fiercely conscientious, and whip-smart, he really understands the dynamics in Russia better than just about anybody. He’s worked creatively and tenaciously to enlist Moscow to act not just as a great power but also as a global partner. From the New START Treaty to securing Russian cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program, to resupplying our troops in Afghanistan and expanding our trade, there’s scarcely an issue in our bilateral agenda that didn’t benefit from Mike’s steady hand and good old fashioned willpower.
Mike has a clear-eyed understanding of the realities of diplomacy, but his realism is matched by an equally deep appreciation for enduring American values and their appeal across the globe. That’s why he engaged directly with Russian civil society. That’s why he stood up for the rights of LGBT individuals. And that’s why he was a relentless advocate for rule of law and an independent media.
Where our countries disagreed, Mike has spoken up clearly – privately and publicly. All you need to do is look at his Twitter account to know that he was truly a groundbreaking Ambassador in a groundbreaking era. He grasped the importance of social media in an information age, but he also grasped a much more essential truth: that all people everywhere should be able to express themselves and, ultimately, determine how they are governed. That’s an enduring conviction, and Mike leaves behind an enduring legacy.
Ambassador McFaul's Departure from Russia
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 4, 2014
I join President Obama in expressing my deep gratitude to one of our very best, Ambassador Mike McFaul, for his exemplary service as U.S. Ambassador to Russia. After five years promoting U.S.-Russian relations, and the past seven months separated from his family, I understand Mike’s desire to return home to California. We will all miss Mike at the State Department, but we know he’ll just be a phone call or a tweet away.
In my time as Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and now as Secretary, I’ve learned firsthand that Mike McFaul isn’t just exceptionally talented, fiercely conscientious, and whip-smart, he really understands the dynamics in Russia better than just about anybody. He’s worked creatively and tenaciously to enlist Moscow to act not just as a great power but also as a global partner. From the New START Treaty to securing Russian cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program, to resupplying our troops in Afghanistan and expanding our trade, there’s scarcely an issue in our bilateral agenda that didn’t benefit from Mike’s steady hand and good old fashioned willpower.
Mike has a clear-eyed understanding of the realities of diplomacy, but his realism is matched by an equally deep appreciation for enduring American values and their appeal across the globe. That’s why he engaged directly with Russian civil society. That’s why he stood up for the rights of LGBT individuals. And that’s why he was a relentless advocate for rule of law and an independent media.
Where our countries disagreed, Mike has spoken up clearly – privately and publicly. All you need to do is look at his Twitter account to know that he was truly a groundbreaking Ambassador in a groundbreaking era. He grasped the importance of social media in an information age, but he also grasped a much more essential truth: that all people everywhere should be able to express themselves and, ultimately, determine how they are governed. That’s an enduring conviction, and Mike leaves behind an enduring legacy.
DOJ SENATE TESTIMONY ON "PRIVACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE"
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRIVACY
Testimony as Prepared for Delivery by Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Mythili Raman Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Topic, “Privacy in the Digital Age”
~ Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Good afternoon, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss the Department of Justice’s fight against cybercrime. I also particularly want to thank the Chair for holding this hearing and for his continued leadership on these important issues.
At the Department of Justice, we are devoting significant resources and energy to fighting computer hacking and other types of cybercrime. The recent revelations about the massive thefts of financial information from large retail stores have served as a stark reminder to all of us about how vulnerable we are to cyber criminals who are determined to steal our personal information. The Justice Department is more committed than ever to ensuring that the full range of government enforcement tools is brought to bear in the fight against cybercrime.
Cybercrime has increased dramatically over the last decade, and our financial infrastructure has suffered repeated cyber intrusions. As we all know, it is becoming far too commonplace an occurrence that our email accounts are hijacked, our financial information siphoned away, and our personal information compromised. The technology revolution – which has brought enormous benefits to individuals, U.S. companies and our economy as a whole – has also facilitated these criminal activities, making available a wide array of new methods that identity thieves can use to access and exploit the personal information of others. Skilled criminal hackers are now able to perpetrate large-scale data breaches that leave, in some cases, tens of millions of individuals at risk of identity theft. Today’s criminals, who often sit on the other side of the world, can hack into computer systems of universities, merchants, financial institutions, credit card processing companies, and data processors to steal large volumes of sensitive and valuable information. They then peddle the stolen information to other criminals, use the information for their own financial gain, or sometimes even terrorize and extort their victims.
Last December, Target, the second-largest U.S. discount chain, announced that credit and debit card data for as many as 40 million consumers who shopped in its stores between November 27 and December 15 may have been compromised. Target then disclosed on January 10 that thieves had also accessed the personal information, including names, phone numbers, home addresses, and/or email addresses, of as many as 70 million people – information that is valued by criminals because it can be used to lure victims with fake emails or hack into other accounts. The U.S. Secret Service, within the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice are investigating this massive data breach.
A few days later, retailer Neiman Marcus Inc. reported that it also was the victim of a suspected cyberattack over the holidays in which some of its customers’ credit card information may have been stolen. Target and Neiman Marcus are just two of the latest known victims.
The Justice Department is vigorously responding to hacking and other cybercrimes through the tenacious work of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, also known as CCIPS, which partners with Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Coordinators in U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country as part of a network of almost 300 Justice Department cybercrime prosecutors. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has made combating cyber threats one of its top national priorities, working through Cyber Task Forces in each of its 56 field offices and continuing to strengthen the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force. Every day, these prosecutors and agents strive to hold to account cyber criminals who victimize Americans.
Consider, for instance, the case of Vladislav Horohorin, which was prosecuted here in the District of Columbia by CCIPS and the United States Attorney’s Office, based on an investigation by the FBI and U.S. Secret Service. Horohorin, known by the online nickname “BadB,” used online criminal forums to sell stolen credit and debit card information to individuals around the world to enable fraudulent transactions by other cyber criminals. At the time of his arrest, he possessed more than 2.5 million stolen credit and debit card numbers. In one instance, he participated in a criminal group that, in a single 12-hour crime spree, stole over $9.4 million through fraudulent transactions at over 2,100 ATMs in 280 cities around the world. As a result of a massive investigation spanning several years – and several countries – we located and charged him, and he was arrested after leaving Russia for France. In April 2013, Horohorin was sentenced to serve 88 months in prison.
Our investigation of the Coreflood botnet is another example of our commitment to stopping massive computer crimes by using the most innovative law enforcement techniques. A botnet is a network of secretly hacked computers, sometimes numbering in the millions, which are located in homes, schools, and offices. The computers are infected with sophisticated malicious software, or “malware,” and once the malware is installed, hackers can put these bots to countless illegal uses. The Coreflood botnet, for example, hijacked hundreds of thousands of computers for the purpose of stealing private personal and financial information – including usernames and passwords – from unsuspecting computer users. In one example, the Coreflood botnet software illegally monitored Internet communications between a computer user and her bank, took over an online banking session, and then emptied the user’s bank account. Overall losses from the scheme were staggering, estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Although the individuals controlling the Coreflood network resided overseas and were largely outside the direct reach of U.S. law enforcement, in 2011, CCIPS, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, and the FBI used a combination of civil and criminal legal authorities to seize key control servers, shut down the network, and work with private sector partners to help disinfect victims’ computer systems. Among other things, as part of this ground-breaking law enforcement operation, the Justice Department obtained a court order authorizing the government to respond to signals sent from infected computers in the United States to stop the Coreflood software from running, and thus to prevent further harm to hundreds of thousands of Americans whose computers were under the control of the botnet. And, in a relatively short period of time, the Coreflood botnet was dismantled.
The Department has continued to place a high priority on arresting and deterring those who create botnets. CCIPS and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta just last week announced the guilty plea of a Russian citizen named Aleksandr Panin for developing and distributing malware called “SpyEye.” The SpyEye malware created botnets that stole personal and financial information such as credit card information, banking credentials, usernames, passwords, and personal identification numbers. Panin sold his software to at least 154 criminal “clients,” who in turn used it to infect an estimated 1.4 million computers around the world. The FBI arrested Panin on July 1, 2013, while he was flying through Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
Hacking can have terrifying consequences even when conducted on a smaller scale, and we have vigorously pursued hackers who have used the Internet to invade Americans’ privacy. In 2011, for example, in a case investigated by the FBI, the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles successfully prosecuted a hacker named Luis Mijangos. Mijangos hacked for sexual thrill. He infected the computers of victims with malicious software that gave him complete control over their computers. He deliberately targeted teens and young women, reading their emails, turning on their computer microphones and listening to conversations taking place in their homes, and, most importantly for him, watching them through their webcams as they undressed. Even more frightening, Mijangos then extorted certain victims by threatening to post intimate pictures on the Internet unless the victims provided him with even more salacious images or videos of themselves. When one victim shared Mijangos’s threats with a friend, Mijangos retaliated by posting nude pictures of the victim on her friend’s social networking page. In another instance, Mijangos had infected the computers of a college student, her boyfriend, and her roommate. When the victim called her boyfriend, and they discussed calling the police, Mijangos reportedly sent the boyfriend an anonymous instant message that said: “I know you’re talking to each other right now!” The victim then decided to call the police. But when she did, she got a message, too. “I know you just called the police,” he wrote. His message was unmistakable: he was in control; he knew everything; and he had the power to hurt the victim further if she reported the crime. At the time of his arrest, FBI computer forensics experts had determined that Mijangos had infected more than 100 computers that were used by approximately 230 individuals, at least 44 of them minors. The Court sentenced Mijangos to 72 months in federal prison.
There are many other examples of the Department’s recent work to bring cyber criminals to justice. There is the takedown of Silk Road, a hidden website designed to enable its users to buy and sell illegal drugs and other unlawful goods and services, and charges against the alleged operator of the site by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland. There is the prosecution by CCIPS and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Hampshire of Adrian-Tiberiu Oprea, a Romanian who recently received a 15-year sentence in September for leading an international, multimillion-dollar scheme to remotely hack into and steal unsuspecting customers’ payment card data from U.S. merchants’ computers. The case was investigated by the U.S. Secret Service. There is the recent indictment by CCIPS and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin of Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd., a China-based manufacturer and exporter of wind turbines, which is alleged to have stolen trade secrets from an American company for the purpose of producing wind turbines and retrofitting existing wind turbines with the stolen technology. And on January 23, the FBI arrested two men for conspiring to hack into victims’ email accounts to steal nude photos that were later posted on the “revenge porn” website isan yon eup.com . The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California charged the men with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The recent disclosures about the massive data breaches at retailers have underscored that cybercrime is a real, present threat, and one that is growing. Cyber criminals steal the personal and financial information of individuals, carry out Distributed Denial of Service (or DDOS)1 attacks on networks, and purloin sensitive corporate or military data. These criminals can easily prey on victims halfway around the world. They sometimes use virtual currencies to enrich themselves while hiding their identities and avoiding leaving their fingerprints in the traditional banking system. Despite these challenges, the Justice Department is staying ahead of these threats. We are using all of the tools available to us to identify cyber criminals, wherever in the world they are located, break up their networks, and bring them to justice. We are developing meaningful partnerships with foreign law enforcement to strengthen our collective capacity to fight cybercrime. And we use our tools responsibly and consistent with established legal safeguards that protect against abuse. But without the tools we have been provided, we would not be able to bring offenders to justice. And we must ensure that the statutes we enforce keep up with technology so that we can keep pace with the cyber criminals, who are constantly developing new tactics and methods.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
In addition to the important law enforcement techniques that we must use to successfully investigate cyber criminals, our prosecutors also rely on substantive criminal statutes to bring cyber criminals to justice. One of the most important of these laws is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, also called the “CFAA.” The CFAA is the primary Federal law against hacking. It protects the public against criminals who hack into computers to steal information, install malicious software, and delete files. The CFAA, in short, reflects our baseline expectation that people are entitled to have control over their own computers and are entitled to trust that information they store in their computers remains safe.
The CFAA was first enacted in 1986, at a time when the problem of cybercrime was still in its infancy. Over the years, a series of measured, modest changes have been made to the CFAA to reflect new technologies and means of committing crimes and to equip law enforcement with tools to respond to changing threats. The CFAA has not been amended since 2008, and the intervening years have again created the need for the enactment of modest, incremental changes. The Administration’s May 2011 legislative proposal proposed revisions to keep Federal criminal law up-to-date. We continue to support changes like these that will keep up with rapidly-evolving technologies and uses.
Deterring Insider Threats
Another portion of the CFAA that has received considerable attention is the way that the law addresses the threat posed by insiders – those who have some right to access a system but who abuse that right, such as employees of a business who unlawfully make off with their employers’ intellectual property. The CFAA addresses this problem by criminalizing conduct by those who “exceed authorized access” to a protected computer.
Some commentators have contended that the CFAA’s provision criminalizing exceeding authorized access should be limited or abolished because the provision is subject to misuse or overuse. Some have worried, for example, that the statute permits prosecution of people who merely lie about their age when going to a dating site, or harmlessly violate the terms of service of an email provider. To that end, we are open to addressing these concerns by working with Congress to develop appropriate statutory amendments, such as new statutory thresholds regarding the value or sensitivity of the information improperly accessed under 1030(a)(2), or new language making more explicit that the statute does not permit prosecution based on access restrictions that are not clearly understood.
At the same time, insider hackers pose a serious threat to American businesses and citizens. Examples of insiders include employees at a credit card company or stock broker who regularly deal with sensitive information. There is generally no way to encrypt and password- protect every piece of data on a system to eliminate the insider threat, because employees need to be able access the data to do their jobs. Thus, written policies between employers and employees – which are simply a contractual means of ensuring trust – are an important way to secure information. Violating these written restrictions harms businesses. Just as businesses justifiably rely on the criminal law to deter thefts of physical property, so they also should be able to rely on it to deter misappropriation of their private, sensitive data – data that is often far more valuable than equipment or supplies.
In recent years, two courts of appeals have interpreted the CFAA to bar certain “insider” cases, creating a circuit split. Compare United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) and WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller, 687 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2012), with United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010); and Int’l Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006). Specifically, the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have interpreted the statute not to permit prosecution as long as an insider was authorized to access the database or information in question for any purpose. Under this interpretation, the CFAA would not apply where a police officer accessed an arrest record for the purpose of harassing a romantic rival, because the officer was authorized to access the records to assist in criminal investigations. Similarly, under this interpretation, the CFAA would not apply where a bank employee accessed customer records for the purpose of selling them to organized crime members, because the employee was authorized to access the records to resolve customer complaints. This interpretation makes it substantially more challenging for DOJ to protect American companies from the misappropriation of their intellectual property and sensitive data – misappropriation that may also directly harm American citizens when that data includes their personal or financial information.
We look forward to working with Congress to address these important issues.
Data Breach Notification
While the Justice Department continues to use all of the tools at its disposal to combat cybercrime, the Administration recommends the establishment of a strong, uniform Federal standard requiring certain types of businesses to report data breaches and thefts of electronic personally identifiable information. Businesses should be required to provide prompt notice to consumers in the wake of a breach. We should balance the need to safeguard consumers and hold compromised entities accountable, while setting clear standards that avoid undue burdens on industry. We should include a safe harbor for breaches with no reasonable risk of harm or fraud. This approach would protect the privacy of individuals while holding firms accountable for failure to safeguard personal data.
In 2011, the Administration put forth a package of recommended cybersecurity amendments that included a data breach notification proposal.2 The 2011 proposal is based upon the belief that American consumers should know when they are at risk of identity theft or other harms because of a data security breach. In addition, to strengthen the tools available to law enforcement to investigate data security breaches and to combat identity theft, the proposal would require that business entities notify the Federal government of a data security breach in a timely fashion so that law enforcement can promptly pursue the perpetrators of cyber intrusions and identity theft. The proposal has several sections of particular note.
First, under this proposal, following the discovery of a security breach, business entities must notify any individual whose sensitive, personally identifiable information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed or acquired, unless there is no reasonable risk of harm. Business entities covered under this requirement are those that use, access, transmit, store, dispose of, or collect sensitive, personally identifiable information about more than 10,000 people during any 12-month period. But the Administration believes that business entities which have demonstrated that they have effective data breach prevention programs should be exempt from notice to individuals if a risk assessment concludes that there is no reasonable risk that a security breach has harmed, or will harm, the individuals whose information was compromised.
The proposal would also recognize that such harm may be avoided where the stolen data has been rendered unusable by criminals; for example, through encryption, or through programs that block unauthorized financial transactions and provide effective notice to affected victims. The proposal also includes certain exceptions for notice that would impair law enforcement investigations or national security.
Because of the importance of bringing the perpetrators of data breaches to justice, the Administration’s proposal would also require business entities to notify law enforcement agencies if the security breach involves (1) the sensitive information of more than 5,000 people; (2) a database or other data system containing sensitive information of more than 500,000 people nationwide; (3) databases owned by the Federal government; or (4) primarily the sensitive information of Federal employees and contractors involved in national security or law enforcement. Businesses would report to a single entity that would then promptly disseminate the reported information to key Federal law enforcement agencies. In recognition of the time- sensitivity of data breach investigations, the notice required under this section would be provided as promptly as possible, but no later than 72 hours before notification to an individual or 10 days after discovery of the events requiring notice, whichever comes first.
Millions of Americans every year are faced with the potential for fraud and identity theft from online breaches of their sensitive, personally identifiable information. The nation clearly needs strong protections for consumers’ rights and privacy, and accountability for businesses that do not safeguard credit card and social security numbers, names and addresses, medical records, and other sensitive information. The Administration’s proposal creates a strong national standard to notify consumers with clear, actionable information when their personal information is compromised. Responsible entities will be held accountable through these disclosures. At the same time, a consistent national standard and reasonable exemptions for harmless breaches will reduce unnecessary compliance costs. This proposal meets the dual challenge of ensuring privacy, security, and safety without burdening economic prosperity and innovation.
Access Device Fraud
To ensure that we can take action when cyber criminals acting overseas steal data from U.S. financial institutions, we also recommend a modification to what is known as the access device fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1029. One of the most common motivations for hacking crime is to obtain financial information. The access device fraud statute proscribes the unlawful possession and use of “access devices,” such as credit card numbers and devices such as credit card embossing machines. Not only do lone individuals commit this crime, but, more and more, organized criminal enterprises have formed to commit such intrusions and to exploit the stolen data through fraud.
The Department of Justice recommends that the statute be expanded to prosecute offenders in foreign countries who directly and significantly harm United States financial institutions and citizens. Currently, a criminal who trades in credit card information issued by a U.S. financial institution, but who otherwise does not take one of certain enumerated actions within the jurisdiction of the United States, cannot be prosecuted under section 1029(a)(3). Such scenarios are not merely hypothetical. United States law enforcement agencies have identified foreign-based individuals selling vast quantities of credit card numbers issued by U.S. financial institutions where there is no evidence that those criminals took a specific step within the United States to traffic in the data. The United States has a compelling interest in prosecuting such individuals given the harm to U.S. financial institutions and American citizens, and the statute should be revised to cover this sort of criminal conduct.
Deterring the Spread of Cell Phone Spying
The Department of Justice further recommends a legislative change to enable law enforcement to seize the profits of those who use cell phone spyware. The spread of computers and cellular phones in recent years has created a new market in malicious software that allows perpetrators to intercept victims’ communications without their knowledge or consent. This is illegal under current law, and current law also provides that law enforcement can forfeit the surreptitious interception devices themselves. It does not, however, enable forfeiture of the proceeds of the sale or use of those devices, or the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate their manufacture, advertising, or distribution. Further, the surreptitious interception of communications is currently not listed as a predicate offense in the money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Because perpetrators of these crimes often act from abroad, making it more difficult to prosecute them, it is particularly important that law enforcement be able to seize the money that the criminals make from engaging in this criminal surveillance, and seize the equipment they use.
Selling Access to Botnets
We also recommend amending current law to address the proliferation of botnets, such as the Coreflood botnet I discussed earlier. Botnets can be used for various nefarious purposes, including theft of personal or financial information, the dissemination of spam, and cyberattacks, such as Distributed Denial of Service attacks. But creators and operators of botnets do not always commit those crimes themselves – frequently they sell, or even rent, access to the infected computers to others. The CFAA does not clearly cover such trafficking in botnets, even though trafficking in infected computers is clearly illegitimate, and can be essential to furthering other criminal activity. We thus propose that the CFAA be amended to cover trafficking in access to botnets.
In addition, section 1030(a)(6) presently requires proof of intent to defraud. Such intent is often difficult to prove because the traffickers of unauthorized access to computers often have a wrongful purpose other than the commission of fraud, or do not know or care why their customers are seeking unauthorized access to other people’s computers. This has made it more challenging in many cases for prosecutors to identify a provable offense even when they can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that individuals are selling access to thousands of infected computers. We therefore recommend that Congress consider amending the CFAA to address this shortcoming.
Conclusion
I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the ways in which the Department protects American citizens and businesses by aggressively investigating and prosecuting hackers – both outsiders and insiders. We understand how devastating it is to victims of cybercrime who have their personal and financial information siphoned away, whether by hackers on the other side of the world or by insiders at a company that might hold their personal information. The Justice Department is committed to using the full range of investigative tools and laws available to us to fight these crimes and protect Americans. And, we will continue to use these tools responsibly.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department’s work in this area, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
Testimony as Prepared for Delivery by Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Mythili Raman Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Topic, “Privacy in the Digital Age”
~ Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Good afternoon, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss the Department of Justice’s fight against cybercrime. I also particularly want to thank the Chair for holding this hearing and for his continued leadership on these important issues.
At the Department of Justice, we are devoting significant resources and energy to fighting computer hacking and other types of cybercrime. The recent revelations about the massive thefts of financial information from large retail stores have served as a stark reminder to all of us about how vulnerable we are to cyber criminals who are determined to steal our personal information. The Justice Department is more committed than ever to ensuring that the full range of government enforcement tools is brought to bear in the fight against cybercrime.
Cybercrime has increased dramatically over the last decade, and our financial infrastructure has suffered repeated cyber intrusions. As we all know, it is becoming far too commonplace an occurrence that our email accounts are hijacked, our financial information siphoned away, and our personal information compromised. The technology revolution – which has brought enormous benefits to individuals, U.S. companies and our economy as a whole – has also facilitated these criminal activities, making available a wide array of new methods that identity thieves can use to access and exploit the personal information of others. Skilled criminal hackers are now able to perpetrate large-scale data breaches that leave, in some cases, tens of millions of individuals at risk of identity theft. Today’s criminals, who often sit on the other side of the world, can hack into computer systems of universities, merchants, financial institutions, credit card processing companies, and data processors to steal large volumes of sensitive and valuable information. They then peddle the stolen information to other criminals, use the information for their own financial gain, or sometimes even terrorize and extort their victims.
Last December, Target, the second-largest U.S. discount chain, announced that credit and debit card data for as many as 40 million consumers who shopped in its stores between November 27 and December 15 may have been compromised. Target then disclosed on January 10 that thieves had also accessed the personal information, including names, phone numbers, home addresses, and/or email addresses, of as many as 70 million people – information that is valued by criminals because it can be used to lure victims with fake emails or hack into other accounts. The U.S. Secret Service, within the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice are investigating this massive data breach.
A few days later, retailer Neiman Marcus Inc. reported that it also was the victim of a suspected cyberattack over the holidays in which some of its customers’ credit card information may have been stolen. Target and Neiman Marcus are just two of the latest known victims.
The Justice Department is vigorously responding to hacking and other cybercrimes through the tenacious work of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, also known as CCIPS, which partners with Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Coordinators in U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country as part of a network of almost 300 Justice Department cybercrime prosecutors. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has made combating cyber threats one of its top national priorities, working through Cyber Task Forces in each of its 56 field offices and continuing to strengthen the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force. Every day, these prosecutors and agents strive to hold to account cyber criminals who victimize Americans.
Consider, for instance, the case of Vladislav Horohorin, which was prosecuted here in the District of Columbia by CCIPS and the United States Attorney’s Office, based on an investigation by the FBI and U.S. Secret Service. Horohorin, known by the online nickname “BadB,” used online criminal forums to sell stolen credit and debit card information to individuals around the world to enable fraudulent transactions by other cyber criminals. At the time of his arrest, he possessed more than 2.5 million stolen credit and debit card numbers. In one instance, he participated in a criminal group that, in a single 12-hour crime spree, stole over $9.4 million through fraudulent transactions at over 2,100 ATMs in 280 cities around the world. As a result of a massive investigation spanning several years – and several countries – we located and charged him, and he was arrested after leaving Russia for France. In April 2013, Horohorin was sentenced to serve 88 months in prison.
Our investigation of the Coreflood botnet is another example of our commitment to stopping massive computer crimes by using the most innovative law enforcement techniques. A botnet is a network of secretly hacked computers, sometimes numbering in the millions, which are located in homes, schools, and offices. The computers are infected with sophisticated malicious software, or “malware,” and once the malware is installed, hackers can put these bots to countless illegal uses. The Coreflood botnet, for example, hijacked hundreds of thousands of computers for the purpose of stealing private personal and financial information – including usernames and passwords – from unsuspecting computer users. In one example, the Coreflood botnet software illegally monitored Internet communications between a computer user and her bank, took over an online banking session, and then emptied the user’s bank account. Overall losses from the scheme were staggering, estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Although the individuals controlling the Coreflood network resided overseas and were largely outside the direct reach of U.S. law enforcement, in 2011, CCIPS, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, and the FBI used a combination of civil and criminal legal authorities to seize key control servers, shut down the network, and work with private sector partners to help disinfect victims’ computer systems. Among other things, as part of this ground-breaking law enforcement operation, the Justice Department obtained a court order authorizing the government to respond to signals sent from infected computers in the United States to stop the Coreflood software from running, and thus to prevent further harm to hundreds of thousands of Americans whose computers were under the control of the botnet. And, in a relatively short period of time, the Coreflood botnet was dismantled.
The Department has continued to place a high priority on arresting and deterring those who create botnets. CCIPS and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta just last week announced the guilty plea of a Russian citizen named Aleksandr Panin for developing and distributing malware called “SpyEye.” The SpyEye malware created botnets that stole personal and financial information such as credit card information, banking credentials, usernames, passwords, and personal identification numbers. Panin sold his software to at least 154 criminal “clients,” who in turn used it to infect an estimated 1.4 million computers around the world. The FBI arrested Panin on July 1, 2013, while he was flying through Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
Hacking can have terrifying consequences even when conducted on a smaller scale, and we have vigorously pursued hackers who have used the Internet to invade Americans’ privacy. In 2011, for example, in a case investigated by the FBI, the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles successfully prosecuted a hacker named Luis Mijangos. Mijangos hacked for sexual thrill. He infected the computers of victims with malicious software that gave him complete control over their computers. He deliberately targeted teens and young women, reading their emails, turning on their computer microphones and listening to conversations taking place in their homes, and, most importantly for him, watching them through their webcams as they undressed. Even more frightening, Mijangos then extorted certain victims by threatening to post intimate pictures on the Internet unless the victims provided him with even more salacious images or videos of themselves. When one victim shared Mijangos’s threats with a friend, Mijangos retaliated by posting nude pictures of the victim on her friend’s social networking page. In another instance, Mijangos had infected the computers of a college student, her boyfriend, and her roommate. When the victim called her boyfriend, and they discussed calling the police, Mijangos reportedly sent the boyfriend an anonymous instant message that said: “I know you’re talking to each other right now!” The victim then decided to call the police. But when she did, she got a message, too. “I know you just called the police,” he wrote. His message was unmistakable: he was in control; he knew everything; and he had the power to hurt the victim further if she reported the crime. At the time of his arrest, FBI computer forensics experts had determined that Mijangos had infected more than 100 computers that were used by approximately 230 individuals, at least 44 of them minors. The Court sentenced Mijangos to 72 months in federal prison.
There are many other examples of the Department’s recent work to bring cyber criminals to justice. There is the takedown of Silk Road, a hidden website designed to enable its users to buy and sell illegal drugs and other unlawful goods and services, and charges against the alleged operator of the site by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland. There is the prosecution by CCIPS and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Hampshire of Adrian-Tiberiu Oprea, a Romanian who recently received a 15-year sentence in September for leading an international, multimillion-dollar scheme to remotely hack into and steal unsuspecting customers’ payment card data from U.S. merchants’ computers. The case was investigated by the U.S. Secret Service. There is the recent indictment by CCIPS and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin of Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd., a China-based manufacturer and exporter of wind turbines, which is alleged to have stolen trade secrets from an American company for the purpose of producing wind turbines and retrofitting existing wind turbines with the stolen technology. And on January 23, the FBI arrested two men for conspiring to hack into victims’ email accounts to steal nude photos that were later posted on the “revenge porn” website isan yon eup.com . The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California charged the men with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The recent disclosures about the massive data breaches at retailers have underscored that cybercrime is a real, present threat, and one that is growing. Cyber criminals steal the personal and financial information of individuals, carry out Distributed Denial of Service (or DDOS)1 attacks on networks, and purloin sensitive corporate or military data. These criminals can easily prey on victims halfway around the world. They sometimes use virtual currencies to enrich themselves while hiding their identities and avoiding leaving their fingerprints in the traditional banking system. Despite these challenges, the Justice Department is staying ahead of these threats. We are using all of the tools available to us to identify cyber criminals, wherever in the world they are located, break up their networks, and bring them to justice. We are developing meaningful partnerships with foreign law enforcement to strengthen our collective capacity to fight cybercrime. And we use our tools responsibly and consistent with established legal safeguards that protect against abuse. But without the tools we have been provided, we would not be able to bring offenders to justice. And we must ensure that the statutes we enforce keep up with technology so that we can keep pace with the cyber criminals, who are constantly developing new tactics and methods.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
In addition to the important law enforcement techniques that we must use to successfully investigate cyber criminals, our prosecutors also rely on substantive criminal statutes to bring cyber criminals to justice. One of the most important of these laws is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, also called the “CFAA.” The CFAA is the primary Federal law against hacking. It protects the public against criminals who hack into computers to steal information, install malicious software, and delete files. The CFAA, in short, reflects our baseline expectation that people are entitled to have control over their own computers and are entitled to trust that information they store in their computers remains safe.
The CFAA was first enacted in 1986, at a time when the problem of cybercrime was still in its infancy. Over the years, a series of measured, modest changes have been made to the CFAA to reflect new technologies and means of committing crimes and to equip law enforcement with tools to respond to changing threats. The CFAA has not been amended since 2008, and the intervening years have again created the need for the enactment of modest, incremental changes. The Administration’s May 2011 legislative proposal proposed revisions to keep Federal criminal law up-to-date. We continue to support changes like these that will keep up with rapidly-evolving technologies and uses.
Deterring Insider Threats
Another portion of the CFAA that has received considerable attention is the way that the law addresses the threat posed by insiders – those who have some right to access a system but who abuse that right, such as employees of a business who unlawfully make off with their employers’ intellectual property. The CFAA addresses this problem by criminalizing conduct by those who “exceed authorized access” to a protected computer.
Some commentators have contended that the CFAA’s provision criminalizing exceeding authorized access should be limited or abolished because the provision is subject to misuse or overuse. Some have worried, for example, that the statute permits prosecution of people who merely lie about their age when going to a dating site, or harmlessly violate the terms of service of an email provider. To that end, we are open to addressing these concerns by working with Congress to develop appropriate statutory amendments, such as new statutory thresholds regarding the value or sensitivity of the information improperly accessed under 1030(a)(2), or new language making more explicit that the statute does not permit prosecution based on access restrictions that are not clearly understood.
At the same time, insider hackers pose a serious threat to American businesses and citizens. Examples of insiders include employees at a credit card company or stock broker who regularly deal with sensitive information. There is generally no way to encrypt and password- protect every piece of data on a system to eliminate the insider threat, because employees need to be able access the data to do their jobs. Thus, written policies between employers and employees – which are simply a contractual means of ensuring trust – are an important way to secure information. Violating these written restrictions harms businesses. Just as businesses justifiably rely on the criminal law to deter thefts of physical property, so they also should be able to rely on it to deter misappropriation of their private, sensitive data – data that is often far more valuable than equipment or supplies.
In recent years, two courts of appeals have interpreted the CFAA to bar certain “insider” cases, creating a circuit split. Compare United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) and WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller, 687 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2012), with United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010); and Int’l Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006). Specifically, the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have interpreted the statute not to permit prosecution as long as an insider was authorized to access the database or information in question for any purpose. Under this interpretation, the CFAA would not apply where a police officer accessed an arrest record for the purpose of harassing a romantic rival, because the officer was authorized to access the records to assist in criminal investigations. Similarly, under this interpretation, the CFAA would not apply where a bank employee accessed customer records for the purpose of selling them to organized crime members, because the employee was authorized to access the records to resolve customer complaints. This interpretation makes it substantially more challenging for DOJ to protect American companies from the misappropriation of their intellectual property and sensitive data – misappropriation that may also directly harm American citizens when that data includes their personal or financial information.
We look forward to working with Congress to address these important issues.
Data Breach Notification
While the Justice Department continues to use all of the tools at its disposal to combat cybercrime, the Administration recommends the establishment of a strong, uniform Federal standard requiring certain types of businesses to report data breaches and thefts of electronic personally identifiable information. Businesses should be required to provide prompt notice to consumers in the wake of a breach. We should balance the need to safeguard consumers and hold compromised entities accountable, while setting clear standards that avoid undue burdens on industry. We should include a safe harbor for breaches with no reasonable risk of harm or fraud. This approach would protect the privacy of individuals while holding firms accountable for failure to safeguard personal data.
In 2011, the Administration put forth a package of recommended cybersecurity amendments that included a data breach notification proposal.2 The 2011 proposal is based upon the belief that American consumers should know when they are at risk of identity theft or other harms because of a data security breach. In addition, to strengthen the tools available to law enforcement to investigate data security breaches and to combat identity theft, the proposal would require that business entities notify the Federal government of a data security breach in a timely fashion so that law enforcement can promptly pursue the perpetrators of cyber intrusions and identity theft. The proposal has several sections of particular note.
First, under this proposal, following the discovery of a security breach, business entities must notify any individual whose sensitive, personally identifiable information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed or acquired, unless there is no reasonable risk of harm. Business entities covered under this requirement are those that use, access, transmit, store, dispose of, or collect sensitive, personally identifiable information about more than 10,000 people during any 12-month period. But the Administration believes that business entities which have demonstrated that they have effective data breach prevention programs should be exempt from notice to individuals if a risk assessment concludes that there is no reasonable risk that a security breach has harmed, or will harm, the individuals whose information was compromised.
The proposal would also recognize that such harm may be avoided where the stolen data has been rendered unusable by criminals; for example, through encryption, or through programs that block unauthorized financial transactions and provide effective notice to affected victims. The proposal also includes certain exceptions for notice that would impair law enforcement investigations or national security.
Because of the importance of bringing the perpetrators of data breaches to justice, the Administration’s proposal would also require business entities to notify law enforcement agencies if the security breach involves (1) the sensitive information of more than 5,000 people; (2) a database or other data system containing sensitive information of more than 500,000 people nationwide; (3) databases owned by the Federal government; or (4) primarily the sensitive information of Federal employees and contractors involved in national security or law enforcement. Businesses would report to a single entity that would then promptly disseminate the reported information to key Federal law enforcement agencies. In recognition of the time- sensitivity of data breach investigations, the notice required under this section would be provided as promptly as possible, but no later than 72 hours before notification to an individual or 10 days after discovery of the events requiring notice, whichever comes first.
Millions of Americans every year are faced with the potential for fraud and identity theft from online breaches of their sensitive, personally identifiable information. The nation clearly needs strong protections for consumers’ rights and privacy, and accountability for businesses that do not safeguard credit card and social security numbers, names and addresses, medical records, and other sensitive information. The Administration’s proposal creates a strong national standard to notify consumers with clear, actionable information when their personal information is compromised. Responsible entities will be held accountable through these disclosures. At the same time, a consistent national standard and reasonable exemptions for harmless breaches will reduce unnecessary compliance costs. This proposal meets the dual challenge of ensuring privacy, security, and safety without burdening economic prosperity and innovation.
Access Device Fraud
To ensure that we can take action when cyber criminals acting overseas steal data from U.S. financial institutions, we also recommend a modification to what is known as the access device fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1029. One of the most common motivations for hacking crime is to obtain financial information. The access device fraud statute proscribes the unlawful possession and use of “access devices,” such as credit card numbers and devices such as credit card embossing machines. Not only do lone individuals commit this crime, but, more and more, organized criminal enterprises have formed to commit such intrusions and to exploit the stolen data through fraud.
The Department of Justice recommends that the statute be expanded to prosecute offenders in foreign countries who directly and significantly harm United States financial institutions and citizens. Currently, a criminal who trades in credit card information issued by a U.S. financial institution, but who otherwise does not take one of certain enumerated actions within the jurisdiction of the United States, cannot be prosecuted under section 1029(a)(3). Such scenarios are not merely hypothetical. United States law enforcement agencies have identified foreign-based individuals selling vast quantities of credit card numbers issued by U.S. financial institutions where there is no evidence that those criminals took a specific step within the United States to traffic in the data. The United States has a compelling interest in prosecuting such individuals given the harm to U.S. financial institutions and American citizens, and the statute should be revised to cover this sort of criminal conduct.
Deterring the Spread of Cell Phone Spying
The Department of Justice further recommends a legislative change to enable law enforcement to seize the profits of those who use cell phone spyware. The spread of computers and cellular phones in recent years has created a new market in malicious software that allows perpetrators to intercept victims’ communications without their knowledge or consent. This is illegal under current law, and current law also provides that law enforcement can forfeit the surreptitious interception devices themselves. It does not, however, enable forfeiture of the proceeds of the sale or use of those devices, or the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate their manufacture, advertising, or distribution. Further, the surreptitious interception of communications is currently not listed as a predicate offense in the money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Because perpetrators of these crimes often act from abroad, making it more difficult to prosecute them, it is particularly important that law enforcement be able to seize the money that the criminals make from engaging in this criminal surveillance, and seize the equipment they use.
Selling Access to Botnets
We also recommend amending current law to address the proliferation of botnets, such as the Coreflood botnet I discussed earlier. Botnets can be used for various nefarious purposes, including theft of personal or financial information, the dissemination of spam, and cyberattacks, such as Distributed Denial of Service attacks. But creators and operators of botnets do not always commit those crimes themselves – frequently they sell, or even rent, access to the infected computers to others. The CFAA does not clearly cover such trafficking in botnets, even though trafficking in infected computers is clearly illegitimate, and can be essential to furthering other criminal activity. We thus propose that the CFAA be amended to cover trafficking in access to botnets.
In addition, section 1030(a)(6) presently requires proof of intent to defraud. Such intent is often difficult to prove because the traffickers of unauthorized access to computers often have a wrongful purpose other than the commission of fraud, or do not know or care why their customers are seeking unauthorized access to other people’s computers. This has made it more challenging in many cases for prosecutors to identify a provable offense even when they can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that individuals are selling access to thousands of infected computers. We therefore recommend that Congress consider amending the CFAA to address this shortcoming.
Conclusion
I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the ways in which the Department protects American citizens and businesses by aggressively investigating and prosecuting hackers – both outsiders and insiders. We understand how devastating it is to victims of cybercrime who have their personal and financial information siphoned away, whether by hackers on the other side of the world or by insiders at a company that might hold their personal information. The Justice Department is committed to using the full range of investigative tools and laws available to us to fight these crimes and protect Americans. And, we will continue to use these tools responsibly.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department’s work in this area, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
BIG MEETING OF DEFENSE LEADERSHIP WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA ON AFGHANISTAN
FROM: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Defense Leaders Meet With President on Afghanistan
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2014 – President Barack Obama is meeting with defense leaders today on the way forward in Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman; Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of U.S. Central Command; Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan; and Navy Adm. William H. McRaven, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, will meet with the president in the Oval Office.
"This is the president's opportunity to hear directly from his commanders," Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren told reporters ahead of the meeting.. "This is an opportunity for the president to weigh inputs from the military, as well as other sources, for the president to make decisions as we move forward."
In a related note, Warren commented on news reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been meeting in secret with Taliban officials. "We've long said the path to peace [in Afghanistan] is political and diplomatic, and not military," he said. "We've long said that Afghans speaking to Afghans are what's going to bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan."
Warren did not confirm whether those meetings had taken place.
Finally, the United States continues to urge the Afghan government not to release dangerous terrorists. The government has said it will release 37 prisoners from an Afghan-run detention facility in Bagram.
In the past, Warren has called these men "bad guys" who have the blood of innocent Afghans on their hands. "We believe they continue to be dangerous and should not be released prior to going through the Afghan judicial process," he said today.
Defense Leaders Meet With President on Afghanistan
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2014 – President Barack Obama is meeting with defense leaders today on the way forward in Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman; Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of U.S. Central Command; Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan; and Navy Adm. William H. McRaven, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, will meet with the president in the Oval Office.
"This is the president's opportunity to hear directly from his commanders," Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren told reporters ahead of the meeting.. "This is an opportunity for the president to weigh inputs from the military, as well as other sources, for the president to make decisions as we move forward."
In a related note, Warren commented on news reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been meeting in secret with Taliban officials. "We've long said the path to peace [in Afghanistan] is political and diplomatic, and not military," he said. "We've long said that Afghans speaking to Afghans are what's going to bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan."
Warren did not confirm whether those meetings had taken place.
Finally, the United States continues to urge the Afghan government not to release dangerous terrorists. The government has said it will release 37 prisoners from an Afghan-run detention facility in Bagram.
In the past, Warren has called these men "bad guys" who have the blood of innocent Afghans on their hands. "We believe they continue to be dangerous and should not be released prior to going through the Afghan judicial process," he said today.
NSF ON THE DISAPPEARING DAISY
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The truth about Echinacea: Plant commonly used for colds and flu suffers from disappearing habitat
Purple coneflowers, often found in vanishing prairies, provide food for bees and other species
2014: the Year of the Echinacea.
Widely believed to ward off and treat colds and flu, Echinacea appears in many over-the-counter remedies sold in pharmacies and in health and nutrition stores.
What is Echinacea, and why is it being feted in 2014?
Echinacea is a genus of flowering plants in the daisy family. Its nine wild species live in eastern and central North America; they grow in moist to dry prairies and in open wooded areas.
The genus includes the purple coneflower, pale purple coneflower and narrow-leaved purple coneflower. All have large magenta petals that unfurl from early to late summer.
With the coneflower's popularity as an herbal supplement, more homeowners are featuring varieties of it in their gardens. Echinacea, according to the National Garden Bureau, has long been a "top five" perennial in retail sales.
"Echinacea was chosen as the 2014 plant of the year," states a garden bureau document, "because it's such an American staple."
For at least one species of wild coneflower, however, the narrow-leaved purple coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia), the celebration may be short-lived.
Last riders of the purple sage?
Native to the tallgrass prairie and North American Great Plains, the narrow-leaved purple coneflower "was once abundant and had an extensive range," says Ruth Shaw, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota.
"But with the arrival of European settlers in about 1870, many prairies were converted to agricultural fields. Along with other prairie plants, coneflowers were plowed under."
Now the coneflower is restricted to patches of grassland, plots that are prairie remnants, Shaw and colleague Stuart Wagenius of the Chicago Botanic Garden have found.
Through a National Science Foundation (NSF) Long-Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB) grant, the scientists are studying the genetic composition of narrow-leaved purple coneflowers in a Douglas County, Minnesota prairie.
In the process, they're discovering how such fragmented plant populations adapt to environmental change.
Railroad tracks and row crops encroach upon these small slices of prairie. "Native prairies are filled with plants and pollinators," says Shaw, "but our 27 study sites have become little but coneflower islands."
Adds Sam Scheiner, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, which funds the research, "Many of us use an extract of Echinacea for our health. Live Echinacea plants can also help us understand the health of entire ecosystems.
"Human activities have shrunk wildlands and fragmented the landscape," says Scheiner, "with unknown consequences for the plants and animals living there. Understanding how Echinacea is responding will help us better manage natural areas."
To bee or not to bee in a tallgrass island
Tallgrass prairie is among the most endangered habitats in the world, says Wagenius. "We hope to quickly learn as much about it as we can. With some effort, we might be able to save at least some of these prairie patches."
More than a century ago when tallgrass prairie blanketed the Midwest, it supported countless coneflowers--and the bees that pollinated them. A bee might have been able to fly across a hundred mile expanse of coneflowers, says Wagenius. "Could it still do that today? No way."
Coneflower pollination is far from adequate, he says, in tallgrass prairies like those in Minnesota. Bees can carry pollen only a short distance. With fewer and fewer coneflowers in an area, bees must fly farther and farther to reach them. The pollen delivered is often less than grade-A.
From bee to gene
Where patches of tallgrass prairie are small enough, coneflowers eventually become genetically related--floral cousins and siblings. If a bee ferries pollen between related coneflowers, the pollen may be rejected by the recipient. Then no new seeds are produced; no new generation of coneflowers sprouts up.
If the pollen is accepted by a genetically related plant, inbreeding occurs. The weakling coneflowers that result often don't survive.
"Through our studies of coneflower genetics," Wagenius says, "we're obtaining a new view of why populations of these plants are becoming so small."
Clear and present danger
Lack of high-quality pollen isn't the only danger prairie coneflowers face. Then there are the aphids.
The bane of every home gardener, aphids are no less harmful to wild plants. The breaking apart of coneflower habitats can increase Echinacea's susceptibility to aphids, Shaw and Wagenius discovered.
They conducted a study of the narrow-leaved purple coneflower and an aphid that specializes on feasting on it.
The results weren't good news for coneflowers. "Aphids' preference for inbred coneflowers may reduce the genetic 'fitness' of these plants," says Shaw.
What's a coneflower to do?
For coneflowers, extensive habitat isn't enough. They also need natural fires. "Fire is critical to the health of prairie ecosystems," says Shaw.
Fires started by lightning strikes induce prairie plants to flower, which can lead to more genetic diversity where the blazes have raged.
"Roads and corn fields, however, have put a stop to most of the fires," says Wagenius, "and there's little prairie left to burn."
The scientists are conducting experiments on fire's effects on tallgrass prairie, and are encouraging environmental managers to bring fire back to the prairie in controlled burns.
Otherwise narrow-leaved purple coneflowers, and the tallgrass prairies they symbolize, may soon sputter out.
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF
The truth about Echinacea: Plant commonly used for colds and flu suffers from disappearing habitat
Purple coneflowers, often found in vanishing prairies, provide food for bees and other species
2014: the Year of the Echinacea.
Widely believed to ward off and treat colds and flu, Echinacea appears in many over-the-counter remedies sold in pharmacies and in health and nutrition stores.
What is Echinacea, and why is it being feted in 2014?
Echinacea is a genus of flowering plants in the daisy family. Its nine wild species live in eastern and central North America; they grow in moist to dry prairies and in open wooded areas.
The genus includes the purple coneflower, pale purple coneflower and narrow-leaved purple coneflower. All have large magenta petals that unfurl from early to late summer.
With the coneflower's popularity as an herbal supplement, more homeowners are featuring varieties of it in their gardens. Echinacea, according to the National Garden Bureau, has long been a "top five" perennial in retail sales.
"Echinacea was chosen as the 2014 plant of the year," states a garden bureau document, "because it's such an American staple."
For at least one species of wild coneflower, however, the narrow-leaved purple coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia), the celebration may be short-lived.
Last riders of the purple sage?
Native to the tallgrass prairie and North American Great Plains, the narrow-leaved purple coneflower "was once abundant and had an extensive range," says Ruth Shaw, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota.
"But with the arrival of European settlers in about 1870, many prairies were converted to agricultural fields. Along with other prairie plants, coneflowers were plowed under."
Now the coneflower is restricted to patches of grassland, plots that are prairie remnants, Shaw and colleague Stuart Wagenius of the Chicago Botanic Garden have found.
Through a National Science Foundation (NSF) Long-Term Research in Environmental Biology (LTREB) grant, the scientists are studying the genetic composition of narrow-leaved purple coneflowers in a Douglas County, Minnesota prairie.
In the process, they're discovering how such fragmented plant populations adapt to environmental change.
Railroad tracks and row crops encroach upon these small slices of prairie. "Native prairies are filled with plants and pollinators," says Shaw, "but our 27 study sites have become little but coneflower islands."
Adds Sam Scheiner, program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, which funds the research, "Many of us use an extract of Echinacea for our health. Live Echinacea plants can also help us understand the health of entire ecosystems.
"Human activities have shrunk wildlands and fragmented the landscape," says Scheiner, "with unknown consequences for the plants and animals living there. Understanding how Echinacea is responding will help us better manage natural areas."
To bee or not to bee in a tallgrass island
Tallgrass prairie is among the most endangered habitats in the world, says Wagenius. "We hope to quickly learn as much about it as we can. With some effort, we might be able to save at least some of these prairie patches."
More than a century ago when tallgrass prairie blanketed the Midwest, it supported countless coneflowers--and the bees that pollinated them. A bee might have been able to fly across a hundred mile expanse of coneflowers, says Wagenius. "Could it still do that today? No way."
Coneflower pollination is far from adequate, he says, in tallgrass prairies like those in Minnesota. Bees can carry pollen only a short distance. With fewer and fewer coneflowers in an area, bees must fly farther and farther to reach them. The pollen delivered is often less than grade-A.
From bee to gene
Where patches of tallgrass prairie are small enough, coneflowers eventually become genetically related--floral cousins and siblings. If a bee ferries pollen between related coneflowers, the pollen may be rejected by the recipient. Then no new seeds are produced; no new generation of coneflowers sprouts up.
If the pollen is accepted by a genetically related plant, inbreeding occurs. The weakling coneflowers that result often don't survive.
"Through our studies of coneflower genetics," Wagenius says, "we're obtaining a new view of why populations of these plants are becoming so small."
Clear and present danger
Lack of high-quality pollen isn't the only danger prairie coneflowers face. Then there are the aphids.
The bane of every home gardener, aphids are no less harmful to wild plants. The breaking apart of coneflower habitats can increase Echinacea's susceptibility to aphids, Shaw and Wagenius discovered.
They conducted a study of the narrow-leaved purple coneflower and an aphid that specializes on feasting on it.
The results weren't good news for coneflowers. "Aphids' preference for inbred coneflowers may reduce the genetic 'fitness' of these plants," says Shaw.
What's a coneflower to do?
For coneflowers, extensive habitat isn't enough. They also need natural fires. "Fire is critical to the health of prairie ecosystems," says Shaw.
Fires started by lightning strikes induce prairie plants to flower, which can lead to more genetic diversity where the blazes have raged.
"Roads and corn fields, however, have put a stop to most of the fires," says Wagenius, "and there's little prairie left to burn."
The scientists are conducting experiments on fire's effects on tallgrass prairie, and are encouraging environmental managers to bring fire back to the prairie in controlled burns.
Otherwise narrow-leaved purple coneflowers, and the tallgrass prairies they symbolize, may soon sputter out.
-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF
RECENT AFGHANISTAN PHOTOS FROM U.S. MARINE CORPS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Eddie Glowacki unstraps a fuel barrel at an Afghan army base near Forward Operating Base Nolay in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Jan. 27, 2014. Glowacki is a generator mechanic with a security force advise and assist team, which is assigned to the Afghan army's 2nd Brigade, 215th Corps. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Joshua Young -
U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Eddie Glowacki provides security for Marines at an Afghan army base near Forward Operating Base Nolay in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Jan. 27, 2014. Glowacki is a generator mechanic with a security force advise and assist team, which is assigned to the Afghan army's 2nd Brigade, 215th Corps. The Marines frequently received enemy fire while refueling generators for surveillance towers. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Joshua Young -
SEC COMMISSIONER AGUILAR'S REMARKS ON FINANCIAL FUTURE OF SENIORS AND RETIREES
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Protecting the Financial Future of Seniors and Retirees
Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar
The American Retirement Initiative’s Winter 2014 Summit
Washington, DC
Feb. 4, 2014
Thank you, Keith [Green], for that kind introduction. I am pleased to sponsor The American Retirement Initiative’s Winter 2014 Summit. Protecting our nation’s seniors and retirees has continued to be an important mission for me. They are among the most vulnerable investors in our country. For these reasons, it is imperative to engage in solution-oriented dialogue and raise public awareness of the plight of American seniors and retirees. Before I continue my remarks, however, let me issue the standard disclaimer that the views I express today are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), my fellow Commissioners, or members of the staff.
Let me start by stating the obvious: “baby boomers” are now “retiring boomers.” As baby boomers enter retirement, many are retiring much sooner than expected—often involuntarily. Specifically, a survey sponsored by The Society of Actuaries indicated that while Americans plan to retire at a median age of 65, they are actually retiring at a median age of 58.[1] This is a full seven years earlier than planned. The survey showed that many factors led to retirement. Some of these factors are voluntary,[2] but many are not. Many individuals felt forced out of their jobs or compelled to retire.[3] Others retired because of corporate downsizing and/or the availability of financial incentives to retire.[4] Interestingly, research shows that those Americans facing retirement contemplated that they would find some interesting work to keep them occupied during retirement—and earn some extra money.[5] Unfortunately, the data shows that this is just not the case. In reality, many retirees who anticipated working in retirement did not work.[6]
There are also retirement issues unique to certain groups-particularly African-Americans and Hispanics. As a result, we have two panels today focusing on the retirement issues confronting these groups. Although these two groups have made tremendous progress in our country, their relationship with our financial services industry can be characterized as lacking and in need of significantly more attention.
In 2010, the Department of Labor issued a report on a study concluding that disparities in retirement security existed for women and racial minorities.[7] The statistics are troubling. For example, more African-American workers are out of the labor force at ages 55-64 than other groups, primarily because of higher rates of disability.[8] The report also stated that older women who are alone,, after the age of 65, are much more likely to be poor than married women, and that women of color are much more likely to be poor than white women.[9] Moreover, the Urban Institute noted that, in 2009, 65% of white wage and salary workers were offered employer-sponsored retirement plans compared to only 56% for African-American workers.[10]
Just last month, a survey by the Social Security Administration based on the most recent data shows that African-Americans had lower earnings than the overall population.[11] This means that African-Americans will likely receive lower Social Security benefits at retirement, because these benefits are based on lifetime earnings.[12] Moreover, African-Americans are less likely to be married compared to the total U.S. population, suggesting that they are less likely to qualify for Social Security spouse and survivor benefits that might otherwise assist their financial well-being at retirement.[13]
Similarly, a recent survey of Hispanics and their financial and retirement planning shows that the annual household incomes of Hispanics are even lower than the African-American community and, of course, lower than the general U.S. population.[14] According to the survey, Hispanics also anticipate retiring at age 66 and continuing to work at least part-time during retirement,[15] which, as noted earlier, may be a bit too optimistic. The survey also indicates that more than 50% of Hispanics surveyed had a poor understanding of retirement plans at work.[16] Moreover, the data shows that only 38% of Hispanic workers had access to employer-sponsored retirement plans and, of those, only 71% actually contributed to the plans—compared to 85% of the general population.[17]
Obviously, these surveys and studies have important implications for those that are planning for retirement. Among other things, it means that they have a shorter period of time to accumulate wealth needed for retirement. The longer retirement period also means that they will need to be better prepared to address threats to their retirement nest eggs—such as inflation, health care costs, and long-term care. In addition, they will need to be more vigilant in protecting their assets from fraudsters and those who prey on, and target, seniors and retirees.
Today’s panels will discuss many of the issues I just mentioned. For the remaining time I have this morning, I would like to highlight:
Some serious issues related to elderly financial abuse; and
Some regulatory initiatives designed to protect the financial future of seniors and retirees.
Elder Financial Abuse
A recent survey showed that 84% of experts specializing in investment fraud and financial exploitation of American senior citizens agree that the problem of fraud targeting the elderly is getting worse.[18] Nearly all of those experts said that elderly Americans are vulnerable to financial swindles, and that the problem of investment fraud against seniors is serious.[19] Indeed, it has been estimated that about one in five Americans aged 65 or older—that’s about 7.3 million senior citizens—already have been victimized by financial fraud.[20] Given these statistics, it is imperative for regulators to work even harder to protect these vulnerable seniors by enforcing laws that reduce the opportunities for fraud.
Demographically, seniors will soon be the largest percentage of the American population. Experts have been forecasting this for some time, as the baby boomer generation ages and retires. What has not been emphasized—as clearly—is the tremendous generational inequality of wealth between some seniors and everyone else. The good news is that, in the aggregate, today’s senior population has been successful in accumulating assets. As noted by a former director of fraud education and outreach for the California Department of Corporations, the state’s securities regulator, aging baby boomers have accumulated substantial assets, either through inheritance, home equity, or a lifetime of saving for retirement.[21] The bad news is that these aging baby boomers are ripe for abuse. This disparity between seniors and everyone else, including their own children, exponentially increases the vulnerability of seniors to financial exploitation. To make matters worse, according to a survey of state securities regulators, financial planners, health care professionals, law enforcement officials, and other experts, the top financial exploiters of older Americans include family members and caregivers.[22] It’s not a pretty picture when those closest to you cannot be trusted.
The SEC’s own enforcement efforts show a continuing trend of fraudulent activities aimed at senior citizens and the elderly. I will mention just a few examples from this past year:
In March 2013, the SEC shut down a $3 million Ponzi scheme that targeted seniors—including an elderly investor suffering from a stroke and dementia—by falsely promising high profits from commercial and residential rental properties.[23]
In August 2013, the SEC filed an administrative action against an individual for targeting senior citizens on Medicaid, and selling them over $1.8 million in promissory notes that purportedly guaranteed a high return.[24]
In November 2013, the SEC charged an individual for defrauding elderly and retired investors into making purported safe investments in government bonds.[25] Instead, he misappropriated about $2.8 million of investor funds to pay his mortgage and make commission payments to his salespeople.[26]
In addition to these egregious fraudulent schemes, the SEC has issued guidance to warn the public about other types of fraud targeting seniors, including oil and gas scams, prime bank fraud, and scams promising high returns or risk-free investments.[27]
Regrettably, there will always be those who prey on the vulnerable and seek to exploit them. This is the reason why we must have in place a strong regulatory framework that limits the opportunities for fraud and deception.
Regulatory Initiatives
I would now like to discuss some of the actions the SEC is taking to safeguard retirement assets, including strengthening our examination programs, partnering with other regulators, and sponsoring events like today’s Summit that is designed to address issues that are important to senior investors.
National Examination Program (NEP) Priorities
One recent example involves the SEC’s National Examination Program, which last month published its 2014 examination priorities. The publication of the priorities is designed to inform investors and registrants about areas that are perceived to have heightened risks.[28] These exam priorities were developed based on, among other things, communications with other regulators and agencies, as well as comments and tips received directly from investors and SEC-registered entities.[29] I would like to point out two initiatives that are particularly important to seniors and retirees: (1) an initiative that focuses on retirement vehicles and rollovers; and (2) an initiative in the broker-dealer exam program that focuses on sales practices and supervision.[30]
First, the SEC is taking a closer look at what happens when, during changes in employment or when entering retirement, investors have several options for what to do with the retirement plan assets held at their former employers. In particular, the SEC will focus on the practices of financial advisers in making recommendations on rollover Individual Retirement Accounts, or IRAs. Indeed, a FINRA regulatory notice has recognized the conflict of interest between a broker-dealer’s financial incentive to recommend that plan assets be rolled over to an IRA—in which case the broker-dealer earns a commission—and a recommendation that an investor leaves her plan assets with her former employer or rollover the assets to a plan sponsored by a new employer, which will result in little or no compensation for the broker-dealer.[31] A financial adviser affiliated with a broker-dealer clearly has an economic incentive to encourage an investor to rollover plan assets into an IRA managed by the broker-dealer.[32] This issue is important because, among other reasons, about 98% of IRAs with balances of $25,000 or less are held in brokerage accounts,[33] and the largest source of contributions to IRAs are rollovers from employer-sponsored retirement plans.[34] Simply stated, there are a lot of potential commission dollars that can influence the advice given.
Given this inherent conflict of interest, the SEC plans to review the practices and incentives of investment advisers and broker-dealers in making recommendations on these rollover IRAs.[35] In particular, the SEC will examine the sales practices of investment advisers that are targeting retirement-age workers to rollover their employer-sponsored 401(k) plans into higher cost investments.[36] The SEC will also examine broker-dealers and investment advisers for possible improper or misleading marketing and advertising, conflicts, suitability, churning, and the use of potentially misleading professional designations when making recommendations on rollover IRAs.[37]
Second, as part of its exam priorities for 2014 and our continuing efforts to protect retail investors, especially elderly investors,[38] the SEC will examine broker-dealer sales practices to detect and prevent fraud and other violations, including affinity fraud targeting seniors.[39] The SEC will also focus on broker-dealers’ supervision of registered representatives with significant disciplinary histories.[40] Last year, a Wall Street Journal article reported that, from 2005 to 2012, more than 5,000 brokers licensed to sell securities had worked at a firm that had been expelled by FINRA.[41] Notwithstanding that their former firm had been expelled, these brokers remained in the industry. Often these brokers go from one problematic broker-dealer to another. This pattern of brokers moving from one problem broker-dealer to another is sometimes called “cockroaching.”[42] During my tenure as Commissioner, I have seen a multitude of enforcement cases involving recidivist brokers. In fact, this issue is of such serious concern that the Commission has discussed with the SEC staff the need to address this problem. I am glad to report some positive movement. Just last month, FINRA reported the formation of an enforcement team dedicated to reviewing brokers whose records show a pattern of complaints relating to sales practice abuses.[43] I expect that the staff of the SEC and FINRA will work closely to address the problem of recidivist brokers. We need to address this issue to reduce investor harm and restore investor trust and confidence, which is fundamental to encouraging Americans to invest their savings in our capital markets and fundamental to protecting their retirement assets.
Although it is important that seniors and retirees be vigilant and be the first line of defense in protecting their own assets, the importance of regulatory oversight cannot be understated. As one survey shows, most seniors do not have all the information they need to pick a financial adviser to help protect their retirement assets.[44] And about three in five experts said that seniors are not able to determine the “legitimacy, value, and authenticity of credentials held by their financial advisers and planners.”[45] For this and other reasons, the SEC and other regulators must continue to play an important role in securing the financial future of American retirees, and working proactively to protect retirement assets is a step in the right direction.
Reporting Elder Financial Abuse
As I near the end of my remarks, I would also like to say a few words about the need to report elder financial abuse. Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that only a small fraction of elder financial abuse is reported.[46] Senior citizens are attractive targets for financial exploitation by fraudsters because they generally have significant assets or equity in their homes.[47] In addition, they are particularly vulnerable because of isolation, cognitive decline, physical disability, and health problems.[48] One survey showed that one in five doctors and nurses often deal with older victims of investment fraud, and 92% of these doctors and nurses think that even mild cognitive impairment often make seniors more vulnerable to investment fraud.[49] Given this information, it is important to encourage the prompt reporting of suspected financial exploitation of the elderly to appropriate authorities in order to trigger intervention, prevent financial losses, and provide other types of assistance.[50]
Unfortunately, many financial institutions may hesitate to report suspected elder financial abuse if it entails disclosing nonpublic personal information about their customers. Their hesitation comes from a concern that this information cannot be shared with others due to limitations on sharing such information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The law, however, is not meant to shield fraudulent activities targeting older adults. To make that clear, the SEC and other federal regulators issued guidance last year confirming that it is lawful for financial institutions to use customer information for purposes of reporting suspected financial abuse of older adults to local, state, or federal agencies.[51] The guidance also provides information on potential signs of elder financial abuse, such as erratic or unusual banking transactions.[52] The hope is that, by encouraging prompt reporting of elder financial abuse, seniors and retirees can get the assistance they need, when they need it.
Conclusion
I will conclude my remarks by reaffirming my commitment to protect our nation’s seniors and retirees. This is an important priority for me personally and for the agency. Elder financial abuse is a problem growing exponentially, and the SEC must remain vigilant in detecting and prosecuting fraud targeted at the elderly. Gatherings like today’s event help support, protect, and empower our seniors and retirees.
I would like to thank the SEC staff, especially Maya Samms and Steven Mosier from the SEC University, for working with Keith and me over the last few months to put together this event. And, of course, I need to thank my Chief of Staff, Smeeta Ramarathnam, and my counsel, Paul Gumagay, for their work leading up to today. Because of everyone’s collective hard work, we can expect an exciting day filled with fulsome discussions of issues that are important to our nation’s seniors and retirees.
Today’s panels will consist of experts from outside and inside the SEC, and I want to thank each of them for taking the time for being here and contributing their knowledge. I expect today’s discussions to be informative, and I encourage the audience to participate.
Thank you and enjoy the event.
[1] The Society of Actuaries, 2013 Risks and Process of Retirement Survey Report of Findings, p. 3 (Dec. 2013), available at http://www.soa.org/Files/Research/Projects/research-2013-retirement-survey.pdf.
[2] For example, some retirees looked forward to enjoying retirement by pursuing passions and interests and no longer having to work for pay. Id. at 8.
[3] See id. at 8.
[4] See id.
[5] See id.
[6] Id. Undoubtedly, the urgent need to help Americans plan and save for retirement prompted President Barack Obama—during his State of the Union Address last week—to direct the U.S. Department of Treasury to create a retirement savings program intended to help American workers build a nest egg for retirement. See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address (Jan. 28, 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address; see also, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Memorandum -- Retirement Savings Security: Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury (Jan. 28, 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/presidential-memorandum-retirement-savings-security.
[7] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Disparities for Women and Minorities in Retirement Savings (2010), available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/2010ACreport3.html.
[8] See id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Patricia P. Martin and John L. Murphy, U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, African-Americans: Description of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income Participation and Benefit Levels Using the American Community Survey, Research and Statistics Note No. 2014-01 (released Jan. 2014), available at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2014-01.html.
[12] See id.
[13] See id.
[14] 2014 Prudential Research, The Hispanic American Financial Experience, p. 8 (Jan. 2014), available at http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/hispanic_en/prudential_hafe_researchstudy_2014_en.pdf.
[15] See id. at 13.
[16] See id. at 2.
[17] See id. at 14; supra note 7.
[18] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: More than 4 Out of 5 Experts Say Financial Abuse of Elderly is Getting Worse (June 13, 2012), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/IPT_Elder_Fraud_Survey_News_Release_06-13-12.pdf.
[19] See id.
[20] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation, pp. 3, 26 (June 15, 2010), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/EIFFE_Survey_Report.pdf.
[21] Kimberly Blanton, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, The Rise of Financial Fraud: Scams Never Change but Disguises Do, p. 3 (Feb. 2012), available at http://fsp.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Scams-RFTF.pdf.
[22] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: Family Members, Caregivers and Swindlers are Top Financial Exploiters of Older Americans (Aug. 15, 2012), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/IPT-IPI_EIFFE_Expert_Survey_News_Release_08-15-12.pdf.
[23] SEC v. Brown, et al., Lit Rels. No. 22642 (Mar. 12, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22642.htm.
[24] In the Matter of Richard D. Hicks, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15413 (Aug. 13, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2013/33-9440.pdf.
[25] SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Colorado Man in Scheme Targeting Elderly Investors (Nov. 21, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370540397404.
[26] Id.
[27] SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, A Guide for Seniors: Protect Yourself Against Investment Fraud, pp. 7-8, available at http://www.sec.gov/investor/seniors/guideforseniors.pdf. Last year, the SEC issued an investor alert on Ponzi scheme using virtual currencies. See SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Investor Alert: Ponzi Schemes Using Virtual Currencies (July 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf. Fraudsters are always finding ways to prey on others. For example, the recent interest in Bitcoin currency has already been used to defraud investors. In July 2013, the Commission charged a Texas man and his company with defrauding investors in a Ponzi scheme involving Bitcoin, a virtual currency traded on online exchanges for conventional currencies like the U.S. dollar or used to purchase goods or services online. See SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Texas Man with Running Bitcoin-Denominated Ponzi Scheme (July 23, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583. This individual promised investors up to 7% weekly interest and claimed that invested funds would be used for Bitcoin arbitrage activities to generate returns. Id. Instead, he used investor funds to pay other investors in a Ponzi scheme and pay his personal expenses. Id.
[28] SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, National Exam Program, Examination Priorities for 2014 (Jan. 9, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/national-examination-program-priorities-2014.pdf.
[29] Id. at 1.
[30] Id. at 3, 7.
[31] Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), Regulatory Notice No. 13-45, Rollovers to Individual Retirement Accounts: FINRA Reminds Firms of Their Responsibilities Concerning IRA Rollovers, p. 4 (Dec. 2013), available at https://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p418695.pdf.
[32] See id.
[33] Id. at 2 (citing to Letter to Employee Benefits Security Administration from Davis & Harman, April 12, 2011 (transmitting study prepared by Oliver Wyman Inc.)).
[34] Id. at 2.
[35] SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, National Exam Program, Examination Priorities for 2014, p. 3 (Jan. 9, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/national-examination-program-priorities-2014.pdf.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] See id. at 7 and n. 10.
[39] See id. at 7. The SEC will also examine broker-dealer sales practices to detect and prevent potential securities law violations such as microcap fraud, unsuitable recommendations of high-yield and complex products, sales and promotion of unregistered offerings by unregistered entities, and affinity fraud in general. Id.
[40] Id.
[41] Jean Eaglesham and Rob Barry, Wall Street Journal, More Than 5,000 Stockbrokers From Expelled Firms Still Selling Securities (Oct. 4, 2013), available at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303643304579107442831410708.
[42] Id.
[43] FINRA News Release, FINRA Releases 2014 Regulatory and Exam Priorities (Jan. 2, 2014), available at https://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2014/P412649 and https://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@guide/documents/industry/p419710.pdf. This initiative expanded FINRA’s High Risk Broker initiative, launched in 2013 to identify problem brokers. See id. at 3. FINRA said it would use an analytical tool called the Broker Migration Model to identify and monitor brokers who moved from one problem FINRA-regulated firm to another problem FINRA-regulated firm, as well as the firms that employ such brokers. See id.
[44] See supra note 22.
[45] Id. at 2.
[46] See SEC Press Release, Federal Regulators Issue Guidance on Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults (Sept. 24, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539837338; Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/elder-abuse-guidance.pdf (citations omitted).
[47] See id.
[48] Id.
[49] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: 1 in 5 Doctors, Nurses Aware They are Often Dealing with Older Victims of Investment Swindles (June 12, 2013), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/IPT_EIFFE_Medical_Survey_Release_06-12-13.pdf.
[50] Id.
[51] In 2013, the SEC and a coalition of federal regulators issued an interagency guidance stating that the disclosure of nonpublic personal information about consumers to local, state, or federal agencies for purposes of reporting suspected financial abuse of older adults falls within an exception to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. See Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, p. 3, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/elder-abuse-guidance.pdf. This Act generally prohibits disclosures of nonpublic personal information about a consumer to a nonaffiliated third party unless certain procedures are followed. See id.
[52] Id. at 4. Other signs include situations where a financial institution is unable to speak directly with the older adult; a new caretaker suddenly begins conducting financial transactions without proper documentation on behalf of the older adult; or the older adult’s financial management suddenly changes, for example, through a change of power of attorney. Id. at 5.
Protecting the Financial Future of Seniors and Retirees
Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar
The American Retirement Initiative’s Winter 2014 Summit
Washington, DC
Feb. 4, 2014
Thank you, Keith [Green], for that kind introduction. I am pleased to sponsor The American Retirement Initiative’s Winter 2014 Summit. Protecting our nation’s seniors and retirees has continued to be an important mission for me. They are among the most vulnerable investors in our country. For these reasons, it is imperative to engage in solution-oriented dialogue and raise public awareness of the plight of American seniors and retirees. Before I continue my remarks, however, let me issue the standard disclaimer that the views I express today are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), my fellow Commissioners, or members of the staff.
Let me start by stating the obvious: “baby boomers” are now “retiring boomers.” As baby boomers enter retirement, many are retiring much sooner than expected—often involuntarily. Specifically, a survey sponsored by The Society of Actuaries indicated that while Americans plan to retire at a median age of 65, they are actually retiring at a median age of 58.[1] This is a full seven years earlier than planned. The survey showed that many factors led to retirement. Some of these factors are voluntary,[2] but many are not. Many individuals felt forced out of their jobs or compelled to retire.[3] Others retired because of corporate downsizing and/or the availability of financial incentives to retire.[4] Interestingly, research shows that those Americans facing retirement contemplated that they would find some interesting work to keep them occupied during retirement—and earn some extra money.[5] Unfortunately, the data shows that this is just not the case. In reality, many retirees who anticipated working in retirement did not work.[6]
There are also retirement issues unique to certain groups-particularly African-Americans and Hispanics. As a result, we have two panels today focusing on the retirement issues confronting these groups. Although these two groups have made tremendous progress in our country, their relationship with our financial services industry can be characterized as lacking and in need of significantly more attention.
In 2010, the Department of Labor issued a report on a study concluding that disparities in retirement security existed for women and racial minorities.[7] The statistics are troubling. For example, more African-American workers are out of the labor force at ages 55-64 than other groups, primarily because of higher rates of disability.[8] The report also stated that older women who are alone,, after the age of 65, are much more likely to be poor than married women, and that women of color are much more likely to be poor than white women.[9] Moreover, the Urban Institute noted that, in 2009, 65% of white wage and salary workers were offered employer-sponsored retirement plans compared to only 56% for African-American workers.[10]
Just last month, a survey by the Social Security Administration based on the most recent data shows that African-Americans had lower earnings than the overall population.[11] This means that African-Americans will likely receive lower Social Security benefits at retirement, because these benefits are based on lifetime earnings.[12] Moreover, African-Americans are less likely to be married compared to the total U.S. population, suggesting that they are less likely to qualify for Social Security spouse and survivor benefits that might otherwise assist their financial well-being at retirement.[13]
Similarly, a recent survey of Hispanics and their financial and retirement planning shows that the annual household incomes of Hispanics are even lower than the African-American community and, of course, lower than the general U.S. population.[14] According to the survey, Hispanics also anticipate retiring at age 66 and continuing to work at least part-time during retirement,[15] which, as noted earlier, may be a bit too optimistic. The survey also indicates that more than 50% of Hispanics surveyed had a poor understanding of retirement plans at work.[16] Moreover, the data shows that only 38% of Hispanic workers had access to employer-sponsored retirement plans and, of those, only 71% actually contributed to the plans—compared to 85% of the general population.[17]
Obviously, these surveys and studies have important implications for those that are planning for retirement. Among other things, it means that they have a shorter period of time to accumulate wealth needed for retirement. The longer retirement period also means that they will need to be better prepared to address threats to their retirement nest eggs—such as inflation, health care costs, and long-term care. In addition, they will need to be more vigilant in protecting their assets from fraudsters and those who prey on, and target, seniors and retirees.
Today’s panels will discuss many of the issues I just mentioned. For the remaining time I have this morning, I would like to highlight:
Some serious issues related to elderly financial abuse; and
Some regulatory initiatives designed to protect the financial future of seniors and retirees.
Elder Financial Abuse
A recent survey showed that 84% of experts specializing in investment fraud and financial exploitation of American senior citizens agree that the problem of fraud targeting the elderly is getting worse.[18] Nearly all of those experts said that elderly Americans are vulnerable to financial swindles, and that the problem of investment fraud against seniors is serious.[19] Indeed, it has been estimated that about one in five Americans aged 65 or older—that’s about 7.3 million senior citizens—already have been victimized by financial fraud.[20] Given these statistics, it is imperative for regulators to work even harder to protect these vulnerable seniors by enforcing laws that reduce the opportunities for fraud.
Demographically, seniors will soon be the largest percentage of the American population. Experts have been forecasting this for some time, as the baby boomer generation ages and retires. What has not been emphasized—as clearly—is the tremendous generational inequality of wealth between some seniors and everyone else. The good news is that, in the aggregate, today’s senior population has been successful in accumulating assets. As noted by a former director of fraud education and outreach for the California Department of Corporations, the state’s securities regulator, aging baby boomers have accumulated substantial assets, either through inheritance, home equity, or a lifetime of saving for retirement.[21] The bad news is that these aging baby boomers are ripe for abuse. This disparity between seniors and everyone else, including their own children, exponentially increases the vulnerability of seniors to financial exploitation. To make matters worse, according to a survey of state securities regulators, financial planners, health care professionals, law enforcement officials, and other experts, the top financial exploiters of older Americans include family members and caregivers.[22] It’s not a pretty picture when those closest to you cannot be trusted.
The SEC’s own enforcement efforts show a continuing trend of fraudulent activities aimed at senior citizens and the elderly. I will mention just a few examples from this past year:
In March 2013, the SEC shut down a $3 million Ponzi scheme that targeted seniors—including an elderly investor suffering from a stroke and dementia—by falsely promising high profits from commercial and residential rental properties.[23]
In August 2013, the SEC filed an administrative action against an individual for targeting senior citizens on Medicaid, and selling them over $1.8 million in promissory notes that purportedly guaranteed a high return.[24]
In November 2013, the SEC charged an individual for defrauding elderly and retired investors into making purported safe investments in government bonds.[25] Instead, he misappropriated about $2.8 million of investor funds to pay his mortgage and make commission payments to his salespeople.[26]
In addition to these egregious fraudulent schemes, the SEC has issued guidance to warn the public about other types of fraud targeting seniors, including oil and gas scams, prime bank fraud, and scams promising high returns or risk-free investments.[27]
Regrettably, there will always be those who prey on the vulnerable and seek to exploit them. This is the reason why we must have in place a strong regulatory framework that limits the opportunities for fraud and deception.
Regulatory Initiatives
I would now like to discuss some of the actions the SEC is taking to safeguard retirement assets, including strengthening our examination programs, partnering with other regulators, and sponsoring events like today’s Summit that is designed to address issues that are important to senior investors.
National Examination Program (NEP) Priorities
One recent example involves the SEC’s National Examination Program, which last month published its 2014 examination priorities. The publication of the priorities is designed to inform investors and registrants about areas that are perceived to have heightened risks.[28] These exam priorities were developed based on, among other things, communications with other regulators and agencies, as well as comments and tips received directly from investors and SEC-registered entities.[29] I would like to point out two initiatives that are particularly important to seniors and retirees: (1) an initiative that focuses on retirement vehicles and rollovers; and (2) an initiative in the broker-dealer exam program that focuses on sales practices and supervision.[30]
First, the SEC is taking a closer look at what happens when, during changes in employment or when entering retirement, investors have several options for what to do with the retirement plan assets held at their former employers. In particular, the SEC will focus on the practices of financial advisers in making recommendations on rollover Individual Retirement Accounts, or IRAs. Indeed, a FINRA regulatory notice has recognized the conflict of interest between a broker-dealer’s financial incentive to recommend that plan assets be rolled over to an IRA—in which case the broker-dealer earns a commission—and a recommendation that an investor leaves her plan assets with her former employer or rollover the assets to a plan sponsored by a new employer, which will result in little or no compensation for the broker-dealer.[31] A financial adviser affiliated with a broker-dealer clearly has an economic incentive to encourage an investor to rollover plan assets into an IRA managed by the broker-dealer.[32] This issue is important because, among other reasons, about 98% of IRAs with balances of $25,000 or less are held in brokerage accounts,[33] and the largest source of contributions to IRAs are rollovers from employer-sponsored retirement plans.[34] Simply stated, there are a lot of potential commission dollars that can influence the advice given.
Given this inherent conflict of interest, the SEC plans to review the practices and incentives of investment advisers and broker-dealers in making recommendations on these rollover IRAs.[35] In particular, the SEC will examine the sales practices of investment advisers that are targeting retirement-age workers to rollover their employer-sponsored 401(k) plans into higher cost investments.[36] The SEC will also examine broker-dealers and investment advisers for possible improper or misleading marketing and advertising, conflicts, suitability, churning, and the use of potentially misleading professional designations when making recommendations on rollover IRAs.[37]
Second, as part of its exam priorities for 2014 and our continuing efforts to protect retail investors, especially elderly investors,[38] the SEC will examine broker-dealer sales practices to detect and prevent fraud and other violations, including affinity fraud targeting seniors.[39] The SEC will also focus on broker-dealers’ supervision of registered representatives with significant disciplinary histories.[40] Last year, a Wall Street Journal article reported that, from 2005 to 2012, more than 5,000 brokers licensed to sell securities had worked at a firm that had been expelled by FINRA.[41] Notwithstanding that their former firm had been expelled, these brokers remained in the industry. Often these brokers go from one problematic broker-dealer to another. This pattern of brokers moving from one problem broker-dealer to another is sometimes called “cockroaching.”[42] During my tenure as Commissioner, I have seen a multitude of enforcement cases involving recidivist brokers. In fact, this issue is of such serious concern that the Commission has discussed with the SEC staff the need to address this problem. I am glad to report some positive movement. Just last month, FINRA reported the formation of an enforcement team dedicated to reviewing brokers whose records show a pattern of complaints relating to sales practice abuses.[43] I expect that the staff of the SEC and FINRA will work closely to address the problem of recidivist brokers. We need to address this issue to reduce investor harm and restore investor trust and confidence, which is fundamental to encouraging Americans to invest their savings in our capital markets and fundamental to protecting their retirement assets.
Although it is important that seniors and retirees be vigilant and be the first line of defense in protecting their own assets, the importance of regulatory oversight cannot be understated. As one survey shows, most seniors do not have all the information they need to pick a financial adviser to help protect their retirement assets.[44] And about three in five experts said that seniors are not able to determine the “legitimacy, value, and authenticity of credentials held by their financial advisers and planners.”[45] For this and other reasons, the SEC and other regulators must continue to play an important role in securing the financial future of American retirees, and working proactively to protect retirement assets is a step in the right direction.
Reporting Elder Financial Abuse
As I near the end of my remarks, I would also like to say a few words about the need to report elder financial abuse. Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that only a small fraction of elder financial abuse is reported.[46] Senior citizens are attractive targets for financial exploitation by fraudsters because they generally have significant assets or equity in their homes.[47] In addition, they are particularly vulnerable because of isolation, cognitive decline, physical disability, and health problems.[48] One survey showed that one in five doctors and nurses often deal with older victims of investment fraud, and 92% of these doctors and nurses think that even mild cognitive impairment often make seniors more vulnerable to investment fraud.[49] Given this information, it is important to encourage the prompt reporting of suspected financial exploitation of the elderly to appropriate authorities in order to trigger intervention, prevent financial losses, and provide other types of assistance.[50]
Unfortunately, many financial institutions may hesitate to report suspected elder financial abuse if it entails disclosing nonpublic personal information about their customers. Their hesitation comes from a concern that this information cannot be shared with others due to limitations on sharing such information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The law, however, is not meant to shield fraudulent activities targeting older adults. To make that clear, the SEC and other federal regulators issued guidance last year confirming that it is lawful for financial institutions to use customer information for purposes of reporting suspected financial abuse of older adults to local, state, or federal agencies.[51] The guidance also provides information on potential signs of elder financial abuse, such as erratic or unusual banking transactions.[52] The hope is that, by encouraging prompt reporting of elder financial abuse, seniors and retirees can get the assistance they need, when they need it.
Conclusion
I will conclude my remarks by reaffirming my commitment to protect our nation’s seniors and retirees. This is an important priority for me personally and for the agency. Elder financial abuse is a problem growing exponentially, and the SEC must remain vigilant in detecting and prosecuting fraud targeted at the elderly. Gatherings like today’s event help support, protect, and empower our seniors and retirees.
I would like to thank the SEC staff, especially Maya Samms and Steven Mosier from the SEC University, for working with Keith and me over the last few months to put together this event. And, of course, I need to thank my Chief of Staff, Smeeta Ramarathnam, and my counsel, Paul Gumagay, for their work leading up to today. Because of everyone’s collective hard work, we can expect an exciting day filled with fulsome discussions of issues that are important to our nation’s seniors and retirees.
Today’s panels will consist of experts from outside and inside the SEC, and I want to thank each of them for taking the time for being here and contributing their knowledge. I expect today’s discussions to be informative, and I encourage the audience to participate.
Thank you and enjoy the event.
[1] The Society of Actuaries, 2013 Risks and Process of Retirement Survey Report of Findings, p. 3 (Dec. 2013), available at http://www.soa.org/Files/Research/Projects/research-2013-retirement-survey.pdf.
[2] For example, some retirees looked forward to enjoying retirement by pursuing passions and interests and no longer having to work for pay. Id. at 8.
[3] See id. at 8.
[4] See id.
[5] See id.
[6] Id. Undoubtedly, the urgent need to help Americans plan and save for retirement prompted President Barack Obama—during his State of the Union Address last week—to direct the U.S. Department of Treasury to create a retirement savings program intended to help American workers build a nest egg for retirement. See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address (Jan. 28, 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address; see also, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Presidential Memorandum -- Retirement Savings Security: Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury (Jan. 28, 2014), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/presidential-memorandum-retirement-savings-security.
[7] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Disparities for Women and Minorities in Retirement Savings (2010), available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/2010ACreport3.html.
[8] See id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Patricia P. Martin and John L. Murphy, U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, African-Americans: Description of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income Participation and Benefit Levels Using the American Community Survey, Research and Statistics Note No. 2014-01 (released Jan. 2014), available at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2014-01.html.
[12] See id.
[13] See id.
[14] 2014 Prudential Research, The Hispanic American Financial Experience, p. 8 (Jan. 2014), available at http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/hispanic_en/prudential_hafe_researchstudy_2014_en.pdf.
[15] See id. at 13.
[16] See id. at 2.
[17] See id. at 14; supra note 7.
[18] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: More than 4 Out of 5 Experts Say Financial Abuse of Elderly is Getting Worse (June 13, 2012), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/IPT_Elder_Fraud_Survey_News_Release_06-13-12.pdf.
[19] See id.
[20] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation, pp. 3, 26 (June 15, 2010), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/EIFFE_Survey_Report.pdf.
[21] Kimberly Blanton, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, The Rise of Financial Fraud: Scams Never Change but Disguises Do, p. 3 (Feb. 2012), available at http://fsp.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Scams-RFTF.pdf.
[22] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: Family Members, Caregivers and Swindlers are Top Financial Exploiters of Older Americans (Aug. 15, 2012), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/IPT-IPI_EIFFE_Expert_Survey_News_Release_08-15-12.pdf.
[23] SEC v. Brown, et al., Lit Rels. No. 22642 (Mar. 12, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22642.htm.
[24] In the Matter of Richard D. Hicks, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15413 (Aug. 13, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2013/33-9440.pdf.
[25] SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Colorado Man in Scheme Targeting Elderly Investors (Nov. 21, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370540397404.
[26] Id.
[27] SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, A Guide for Seniors: Protect Yourself Against Investment Fraud, pp. 7-8, available at http://www.sec.gov/investor/seniors/guideforseniors.pdf. Last year, the SEC issued an investor alert on Ponzi scheme using virtual currencies. See SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Investor Alert: Ponzi Schemes Using Virtual Currencies (July 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf. Fraudsters are always finding ways to prey on others. For example, the recent interest in Bitcoin currency has already been used to defraud investors. In July 2013, the Commission charged a Texas man and his company with defrauding investors in a Ponzi scheme involving Bitcoin, a virtual currency traded on online exchanges for conventional currencies like the U.S. dollar or used to purchase goods or services online. See SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Texas Man with Running Bitcoin-Denominated Ponzi Scheme (July 23, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583. This individual promised investors up to 7% weekly interest and claimed that invested funds would be used for Bitcoin arbitrage activities to generate returns. Id. Instead, he used investor funds to pay other investors in a Ponzi scheme and pay his personal expenses. Id.
[28] SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, National Exam Program, Examination Priorities for 2014 (Jan. 9, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/national-examination-program-priorities-2014.pdf.
[29] Id. at 1.
[30] Id. at 3, 7.
[31] Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), Regulatory Notice No. 13-45, Rollovers to Individual Retirement Accounts: FINRA Reminds Firms of Their Responsibilities Concerning IRA Rollovers, p. 4 (Dec. 2013), available at https://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p418695.pdf.
[32] See id.
[33] Id. at 2 (citing to Letter to Employee Benefits Security Administration from Davis & Harman, April 12, 2011 (transmitting study prepared by Oliver Wyman Inc.)).
[34] Id. at 2.
[35] SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, National Exam Program, Examination Priorities for 2014, p. 3 (Jan. 9, 2014), available at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/national-examination-program-priorities-2014.pdf.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] See id. at 7 and n. 10.
[39] See id. at 7. The SEC will also examine broker-dealer sales practices to detect and prevent potential securities law violations such as microcap fraud, unsuitable recommendations of high-yield and complex products, sales and promotion of unregistered offerings by unregistered entities, and affinity fraud in general. Id.
[40] Id.
[41] Jean Eaglesham and Rob Barry, Wall Street Journal, More Than 5,000 Stockbrokers From Expelled Firms Still Selling Securities (Oct. 4, 2013), available at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303643304579107442831410708.
[42] Id.
[43] FINRA News Release, FINRA Releases 2014 Regulatory and Exam Priorities (Jan. 2, 2014), available at https://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2014/P412649 and https://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@guide/documents/industry/p419710.pdf. This initiative expanded FINRA’s High Risk Broker initiative, launched in 2013 to identify problem brokers. See id. at 3. FINRA said it would use an analytical tool called the Broker Migration Model to identify and monitor brokers who moved from one problem FINRA-regulated firm to another problem FINRA-regulated firm, as well as the firms that employ such brokers. See id.
[44] See supra note 22.
[45] Id. at 2.
[46] See SEC Press Release, Federal Regulators Issue Guidance on Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults (Sept. 24, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539837338; Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/elder-abuse-guidance.pdf (citations omitted).
[47] See id.
[48] Id.
[49] Investor Protection Trust, Survey: 1 in 5 Doctors, Nurses Aware They are Often Dealing with Older Victims of Investment Swindles (June 12, 2013), available at http://www.investorprotection.org/downloads/IPT_EIFFE_Medical_Survey_Release_06-12-13.pdf.
[50] Id.
[51] In 2013, the SEC and a coalition of federal regulators issued an interagency guidance stating that the disclosure of nonpublic personal information about consumers to local, state, or federal agencies for purposes of reporting suspected financial abuse of older adults falls within an exception to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. See Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, p. 3, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2013/elder-abuse-guidance.pdf. This Act generally prohibits disclosures of nonpublic personal information about a consumer to a nonaffiliated third party unless certain procedures are followed. See id.
[52] Id. at 4. Other signs include situations where a financial institution is unable to speak directly with the older adult; a new caretaker suddenly begins conducting financial transactions without proper documentation on behalf of the older adult; or the older adult’s financial management suddenly changes, for example, through a change of power of attorney. Id. at 5.
U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA ON WAITANGI DAY
FROM: STATE DEPARTMENT
New Zealand Waitangi Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 4, 2014
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I would like to congratulate the people of New Zealand on this important occasion as you commemorate the anniversary of Te Teriti o Waitangi, or the Treaty of Waitangi, on February 6.
New Zealand has long been a close friend of the United States and our relationship has grown even stronger in recent years. The United States is committed to working together with New Zealand on matters of global security, protecting the environment, ensuring a sustainable economic future for the Asia-Pacific region, and promoting peace and democracy.
I wish the citizens of New Zealand a joyous celebration as you reflect and come together as a nation on this Waitangi Day. We look forward to deepening our friendship over the coming year.
New Zealand Waitangi Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 4, 2014
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I would like to congratulate the people of New Zealand on this important occasion as you commemorate the anniversary of Te Teriti o Waitangi, or the Treaty of Waitangi, on February 6.
New Zealand has long been a close friend of the United States and our relationship has grown even stronger in recent years. The United States is committed to working together with New Zealand on matters of global security, protecting the environment, ensuring a sustainable economic future for the Asia-Pacific region, and promoting peace and democracy.
I wish the citizens of New Zealand a joyous celebration as you reflect and come together as a nation on this Waitangi Day. We look forward to deepening our friendship over the coming year.
CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP REGARDING REPORT ON ASIAN CARP ENTERING GREAT LAKES
FROM: CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP
Recently, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released a new report on ways to stop Asian carp and other invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. The study was required by the Stop the Invasive Species Act, which was authored by Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and signed into law in July 2012. The law required the Corps to complete the report two years earlier than previously scheduled and to focus on hydrological separation to stop invasive species. Unfortunately, the Army Corps’ proposals for projects that could stop Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes are not yet developed enough to allow work on those projects to begin.
“While the report focused on a number of options to protect the Great Lakes, it failed to fully develop a permanent solution to prevent Asian carp from destroying the Great Lakes,” said Camp. “I am concerned many of the Corps’ proposed options rely on undeveloped technology and do not adequately account for the region’s transportation needs. More work is needed to completely develop a serious plan to protect the Great Lakes and the jobs and economy they support.”
Following the report, the Army Corps of Engineers is holding public briefings across the Great Lakes region and accepting public comments. To read and offer comments on the report click here.
The report comes in the wake of alarming incidents that illustrate how close Asian carp are to the Great Lakes and how vulnerable the Lakes are to invasion and ecological destruction.
Recently, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released a new report on ways to stop Asian carp and other invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. The study was required by the Stop the Invasive Species Act, which was authored by Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and signed into law in July 2012. The law required the Corps to complete the report two years earlier than previously scheduled and to focus on hydrological separation to stop invasive species. Unfortunately, the Army Corps’ proposals for projects that could stop Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes are not yet developed enough to allow work on those projects to begin.
“While the report focused on a number of options to protect the Great Lakes, it failed to fully develop a permanent solution to prevent Asian carp from destroying the Great Lakes,” said Camp. “I am concerned many of the Corps’ proposed options rely on undeveloped technology and do not adequately account for the region’s transportation needs. More work is needed to completely develop a serious plan to protect the Great Lakes and the jobs and economy they support.”
Following the report, the Army Corps of Engineers is holding public briefings across the Great Lakes region and accepting public comments. To read and offer comments on the report click here.
The report comes in the wake of alarming incidents that illustrate how close Asian carp are to the Great Lakes and how vulnerable the Lakes are to invasion and ecological destruction.
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER'S REMARKS AT UN CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT
FROM: STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to the UN Conference on Disarmament
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Geneva, Switzerland
February 4, 2014
As Delivered
Mr. President, Acting Secretary-General Moeller, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Conference on Disarmament. To start, I would like to congratulate Israel and Ambassador Manor and his team on assuming the first Presidency of the 2014 CD session, and to thank them for their very dedicated efforts in guiding our deliberations. I would also like to extend our best wishes to the other CD Presidents for 2014 – Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, and Malaysia. We look forward to working with all of you in the year ahead.
In his January 21 remarks to the Conference, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke about the importance of substantive discussion in laying groundwork for future CD negotiations. The United States believes it is crucial for the CD to adopt a program of work, but we also believe we must continue to engage substantively with one another – both about the disarmament steps we are taking and the steps we hope to take next – as we work to break this body’s impasse.
As colleagues here are well aware, we stand ready to begin negotiations on an FMCT, the next logical – and necessary – step in creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. It has been frustrating to watch the CD remain deadlocked over this issue, but negotiation of an FMCT is an essential prerequisite for global nuclear disarmament. In recognition of this fact, Action 15 of the 2010 NPT Review Conference Action Plan included an agreement that the CD should begin immediate negotiation of an FMCT. The United States will continue to urge negotiation of an FMCT in this body, convinced that FMCT negotiations at the CD will provide each member state the ability not only to protect, but also to enhance its national security. With that as our guiding conviction, we look forward to engaging fully in the upcoming meetings of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), with a view to providing further impetus to long-sought FMCT negotiations in the CD.
As disappointed as we are that a Program of Work for the CD remains elusive, we are not standing still. The United States has slashed its nuclear stockpile by 85% from Cold War levels. Under the New START Treaty, US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads will decline to their lowest levels in over half a century. Recently, the US-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement culminated with the final shipment of low enriched uranium converted from the equivalent of 20,000 dismantled Russian nuclear warheads to fuel US nuclear reactors. Those former warheads have been providing ten percent of all US electricity. One in ten light bulbs in the U.S. are lit by former Soviet weapon material
Historic efforts like this one reflect the ongoing and significant progress we are making toward our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Article VI commitments. Here I would add that there are no shortcuts to reaching our shared goal of a world without nuclear weapons. It is necessarily an incremental process that requires hard work by governments operating in the realm of supreme national and international security commitments impacting regional and global stability. The United States is expending tremendous effort to meet its commitments, and we look forward to continuing to engage the Russian Federation regarding issues of strategic stability and with a view to achieving further bilateral reductions.
Like many of you, we are preparing for the upcoming meeting of the NPT Third Preparatory Committee, where we look forward to discussing the important roles both nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states play in implementing the 2010 Action Plan, in anticipation of the 2015 NPT Review Conference. We are also preparing for the fifth P5 Conference, which we thank China for hosting this year.
The United States attaches great value to the P5 process. I like to stress, the importance of the P5 process is not what it can produce in the immediate-term, but rather what it means for the prospects of multilateral nuclear disarmament efforts in years to come. These conferences are an essential means for laying the foundation for future agreements that could involve parties beyond the United States and Russia. Most people understand that we and Russia likely will need to take some additional bilateral steps before our arsenals are to a level where other nuclear weapon states would be prepared to join us at the negotiating table. The work we are doing now in these conferences will help to ensure that when that day arrives, we will not be starting at square one. Our partners will have the opportunity to benefit from the experience we have gained and shared regarding how monitoring activities like on-site inspections can be conducted to gain an understanding about the technology required to conduct arms control activities and methods of information sharing that build confidence that treaty partners are adhering to the agreement.
We also hope this process will lead to cooperative work in addressing the significant verification challenges we will face as we move to lower numbers and categories of nuclear weapons beyond strategic weapons. The United States and the UK have begun some of this work on developing verification procedures and technologies, and we have briefed our P5 partners on the results. The P5 are uniquely positioned to engage in such research and development given their experience as nuclear weapon states. In the context of a P5 working group chaired by China, we continue to develop a common glossary of nuclear weapons-related terms. A glossary may not sound important or interesting, until you consider that verifiable multilateral nuclear disarmament will require clear agreement on the definitions and concepts for the vital aspects that must be covered in future treaties.
We continue to work to build support for ratification of the CTBT, making the case to our citizens and legislators that the Treaty will serve to enhance our collective security. We ask for the support of the international community in continuing to build and maintain the International Monitoring System and On-Site Inspection regime. As we make the case for the Treaty’s verifiability, this support will be crucial.
These are just a few of the practical measures we are taking to advance toward our shared goal. We celebrate the progress these step-by-step efforts have achieved, but we know we still have much work to do. We remain committed to fulfilling our obligations and working to take additional practical and meaningful steps. Like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the United States agrees the CD continues to possess promise. It must surmount its deadlock regarding a Program of Work, and in pursuit f that goal the United States is open to renewing the Informal Working Group. At the same time, we believe that CD member states should foster substantive discussions aimed at future progress, with a view to promoting the prospects for work on issues ripe for negotiation, above all, an FMCT. Like the Secretary General, we hope the CD helps to build “a safer world and a better future” because we also believe “that is its very mission.” Thank you.
Remarks to the UN Conference on Disarmament
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Geneva, Switzerland
February 4, 2014
As Delivered
Mr. President, Acting Secretary-General Moeller, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Conference on Disarmament. To start, I would like to congratulate Israel and Ambassador Manor and his team on assuming the first Presidency of the 2014 CD session, and to thank them for their very dedicated efforts in guiding our deliberations. I would also like to extend our best wishes to the other CD Presidents for 2014 – Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, and Malaysia. We look forward to working with all of you in the year ahead.
In his January 21 remarks to the Conference, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke about the importance of substantive discussion in laying groundwork for future CD negotiations. The United States believes it is crucial for the CD to adopt a program of work, but we also believe we must continue to engage substantively with one another – both about the disarmament steps we are taking and the steps we hope to take next – as we work to break this body’s impasse.
As colleagues here are well aware, we stand ready to begin negotiations on an FMCT, the next logical – and necessary – step in creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. It has been frustrating to watch the CD remain deadlocked over this issue, but negotiation of an FMCT is an essential prerequisite for global nuclear disarmament. In recognition of this fact, Action 15 of the 2010 NPT Review Conference Action Plan included an agreement that the CD should begin immediate negotiation of an FMCT. The United States will continue to urge negotiation of an FMCT in this body, convinced that FMCT negotiations at the CD will provide each member state the ability not only to protect, but also to enhance its national security. With that as our guiding conviction, we look forward to engaging fully in the upcoming meetings of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), with a view to providing further impetus to long-sought FMCT negotiations in the CD.
As disappointed as we are that a Program of Work for the CD remains elusive, we are not standing still. The United States has slashed its nuclear stockpile by 85% from Cold War levels. Under the New START Treaty, US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads will decline to their lowest levels in over half a century. Recently, the US-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement culminated with the final shipment of low enriched uranium converted from the equivalent of 20,000 dismantled Russian nuclear warheads to fuel US nuclear reactors. Those former warheads have been providing ten percent of all US electricity. One in ten light bulbs in the U.S. are lit by former Soviet weapon material
Historic efforts like this one reflect the ongoing and significant progress we are making toward our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Article VI commitments. Here I would add that there are no shortcuts to reaching our shared goal of a world without nuclear weapons. It is necessarily an incremental process that requires hard work by governments operating in the realm of supreme national and international security commitments impacting regional and global stability. The United States is expending tremendous effort to meet its commitments, and we look forward to continuing to engage the Russian Federation regarding issues of strategic stability and with a view to achieving further bilateral reductions.
Like many of you, we are preparing for the upcoming meeting of the NPT Third Preparatory Committee, where we look forward to discussing the important roles both nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states play in implementing the 2010 Action Plan, in anticipation of the 2015 NPT Review Conference. We are also preparing for the fifth P5 Conference, which we thank China for hosting this year.
The United States attaches great value to the P5 process. I like to stress, the importance of the P5 process is not what it can produce in the immediate-term, but rather what it means for the prospects of multilateral nuclear disarmament efforts in years to come. These conferences are an essential means for laying the foundation for future agreements that could involve parties beyond the United States and Russia. Most people understand that we and Russia likely will need to take some additional bilateral steps before our arsenals are to a level where other nuclear weapon states would be prepared to join us at the negotiating table. The work we are doing now in these conferences will help to ensure that when that day arrives, we will not be starting at square one. Our partners will have the opportunity to benefit from the experience we have gained and shared regarding how monitoring activities like on-site inspections can be conducted to gain an understanding about the technology required to conduct arms control activities and methods of information sharing that build confidence that treaty partners are adhering to the agreement.
We also hope this process will lead to cooperative work in addressing the significant verification challenges we will face as we move to lower numbers and categories of nuclear weapons beyond strategic weapons. The United States and the UK have begun some of this work on developing verification procedures and technologies, and we have briefed our P5 partners on the results. The P5 are uniquely positioned to engage in such research and development given their experience as nuclear weapon states. In the context of a P5 working group chaired by China, we continue to develop a common glossary of nuclear weapons-related terms. A glossary may not sound important or interesting, until you consider that verifiable multilateral nuclear disarmament will require clear agreement on the definitions and concepts for the vital aspects that must be covered in future treaties.
We continue to work to build support for ratification of the CTBT, making the case to our citizens and legislators that the Treaty will serve to enhance our collective security. We ask for the support of the international community in continuing to build and maintain the International Monitoring System and On-Site Inspection regime. As we make the case for the Treaty’s verifiability, this support will be crucial.
These are just a few of the practical measures we are taking to advance toward our shared goal. We celebrate the progress these step-by-step efforts have achieved, but we know we still have much work to do. We remain committed to fulfilling our obligations and working to take additional practical and meaningful steps. Like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the United States agrees the CD continues to possess promise. It must surmount its deadlock regarding a Program of Work, and in pursuit f that goal the United States is open to renewing the Informal Working Group. At the same time, we believe that CD member states should foster substantive discussions aimed at future progress, with a view to promoting the prospects for work on issues ripe for negotiation, above all, an FMCT. Like the Secretary General, we hope the CD helps to build “a safer world and a better future” because we also believe “that is its very mission.” Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)