cryptogon.com

The company expects a net loss of 265 billion yen ($2.91 billion) for the year ending March 31, compared with its October estimate of 160 billion yen in net income. It also scrapped its second-half dividend.

Nissan’s sales in the U.S., its biggest market, plunged 31 percent in January as demand for Altima sedans and Xterra sport- utility vehicles dried up. Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn’s elimination of 9 percent of the workforce caps a month in which all of Japan’s carmakers slashed forecasts and Panasonic Corp. and NEC Corp. cut workers.

“The economic storm is wreaking havoc on everyone,” said Yuuki Sakurai general manager of financial and investment planning in Tokyo at Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance Co., which manages the equivalent of $54 billion in assets. “Things could get even worse.”

Car sales in the U.S. have sunk to the lowest level since the early 1980s amid the highest unemployment since 1992, forcing General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to seek government aid. Industrywide sales in Japan fell the most in 35 years last month. The country is headed for its worst postwar recession as factory output slumped in December and unemployment surged.

“We are already in depression, at least for advanced economies,” said International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn on Feb. 7.

“Worst Assumptions”

“Our worst assumptions on the state of the global economy have been met or exceeded,” said Ghosn. Declining consumer confidence and lack of access to credit are “the most damaging factors,” he said.

The carmaker will slash its workforce to 215,000 from 235,000, matching the magnitude of cuts announced by NEC last month. Of the job losses, 60 percent will come in Japan.

“Japan has been used to a private social contract between the biggest companies and their employees,” said Martin Schulz, a senior economist at Fujitsu Research Institute in Tokyo. That social contract is basically being broken.”

Obama will likely need to ask Congress for more money to recapitalize banks, as much as $1 trillion on top of the roughly $300 billion remaining in the current Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to an estimate by former Federal Reserve economist Ward McCarthy. That will be an even tougher sell for the new president than the stimulus plan, which is headed for a Senate vote this week after passing the House with no Republican support.

That package, at least $780 billion of spending and tax cuts aimed at boosting consumer demand and creating jobs, is just a part of what it will take to pull the economy out of the 14- month-old recession. The stimulus will be effective only if credit markets, currently frozen by illiquid assets clogging banks’ balance sheets, begin to function again.

“It will take an enormous effort to build broader public support” for another bank rescue plan, said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Had the stimulus gone through swimmingly it would have made it easier.”

Geithner’s Speech

New steps to be outlined this week by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will include fresh capital injections into banks and ways to deal with toxic securities still on their balance sheets, according to people familiar with the matter.

Geithner’s speech has been pushed back one day to Feb. 10 to avoid distracting attention from the economic-stimulus bill, White House economics director Lawrence Summers said today. That is the same day the Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill.

“There’s a desire to keep the focus right now on the economic recovery program, which is so very, very important,” Summers said today on ABC’s “This Week.”

Treasury will probably propose a combination of buying toxic bank assets, providing guarantees for other assets, and making additional capital infusions to banks, said McCarthy, now a principal at Stone & McCarthy Research Associates, an economic research firm in Skillman, New Jersey.

The 6,780 reports, current as of this month, comprise over 127,000 pages of material on some of the most contentious issues in the nation, from the U.S. relationship with Israel to the financial collapse. Nearly 2,300 of the reports were updated in the last 12 months, while the oldest report goes back to 1990. The release represents the total output of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) electronically available to Congressional offices. The CRS is Congress’s analytical agency and has a budget in excess of $100M per year.

Open government lawmakers such as Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont) have fought for years to make the reports public, with bills being introduced–and rejected–almost every year since 1998. The CRS, as a branch of Congress, is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

CRS reports are highly regarded as non-partisan, in-depth, and timely. The reports top the list of the “10 Most-Wanted Government Documents” compiled by the Washington based Center for Democracy and Technology[1]. The Federation of American Scientists, in pushing for the reports to be made public, stated that the “CRS is Congress’ Brain and it’s useful for the public to be plugged into it,”[2]. While Wired magazine called their concealment “The biggest Congressional scandal of the digital age”[3].

Although all CRS reports are legally in the public domain, they are quasi-secret because the CRS, as a matter of policy, makes the reports available only to members of Congress, Congressional committees and select sister agencies such as the GAO.

Members of Congress are free to selectively release CRS reports to the public but are only motivated to do so when they feel the results would assist them politically. Universally embarrassing reports are kept quiet.

Each time the topic of opening up the reports comes up, it runs into walls erected by opposing lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who “like many members of Congress, views CRS as an extension of his staff,”. If the reports were made public, “every time a member requests a particular document, the public may infer that he’s staking out a particular policy position.” (Aaron Saunders, Stevens’ spokesman, Washington Post, 2007)[4].

However that hasn’t stopped a grey market forming around the documents. Opportunists smuggle out nearly all reports and sell them to cashed up special interests–lobbyists, law firms, multi-nationals, and presumably, foreign governments. Congress has turned a blind eye to special interest access, while continuing to vote down public access.

Opposition to public availability comes not only from members of Congress but, also, from within the CRS.

One might think that the CRS, as an agency of the Library of Congress, would institutionally support having a wider audience. But an internal memo reveals the CRS lobbying against bills (S. Res. 54 and H.R. 3630) which would have given the public access to its reports (Project on Government Secrecy, FAS, 2003)[5].

The primary line pushed by the CRS is the one that appeals most to Congressional members–open publication would prevent spin control. The memo states this in delicate terms, referring to such spin failures as “Impairment of Member Communication with Constituents”.

Of course the CRS doesn’t really care about politicians facing much needed voter discipline, but it does have reasons of its own to avoid public oversight. Institutionally, the CRS has established an advisory relationship with members of Congress similar to the oversight-free relationship established between intelligence agencies and the office of the President.

Free from meaningful public oversight of its work, the CRS, as “Congress’s brain”, is able to influence Congressional outcomes, even when its reports contain errors. Arguably, its institutional power over congress is second only to the parties themselves. Public oversight would reduce its ability to exercise that influence without criticism. That is why it opposes such oversight, and that is why such oversight must be established immediately.

In 1913 Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, a forceful proponent for open government, stated “Sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the most efficient policeman”. Those wise words are still true today.

Law enforcement authorities in this East Texas town of 1,000 people seized property from at least 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008, and, to date, filed criminal charges against fewer than half, according to a review of court documents by the San Antonio Express-News.

Virtually anything of value was up for grabs: cash, cell phones, personal jewelry, a pair of sneakers, and often, the very car that was being driven through town.

Some affidavits filed by officers relied on the presence of seemingly innocuous property as the only evidence that a crime had occurred.

Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She’s still hoping for the return of what she calls “her life savings.”

Dorman’s attorney, David Guillory, calls the roadside stops and seizures in Tenaha “highway piracy,” undertaken by a couple of law enforcement officers whose agencies get to keep most of what was seized.

Guillory is suing officials in Tenaha and Shelby County on behalf of Dorman and nine other clients whose property was confiscated. All were African-Americans driving either rentals or vehicles with out-of-state plates.

Guillory alleges in the lawsuit that while his clients were detained, they were presented with an ultimatum: waive your rights to your property in exchange for a promise to be released and not be criminally charged.

He said most did as Dorman did, signing the waiver to avoid jail.

The state’s asset seizure law doesn’t require that law enforcement agencies file criminal charges in civil forfeiture cases. It requires only a preponderance of evidence that the property was used in the commission of certain crimes, such as drug crimes, or bought with proceeds of those crimes.

That’s a lesser burden than is required in a criminal case. And it allows police departments and prosecutors to divvy up what they get from such seizures — what critics say is a built-in incentive for unscrupulous, underfinanced law enforcement agencies to illegally strip motorists of their property.

Some lawmakers, fed up with calls from irate constituents, say enough is enough. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said the state’s asset forfeiture law is being abused by enough jurisdictions across the state that he wants to rewrite major sections of it this year.

“The idea that people lose their property but are never charged and never get it back, that’s theft as far as I’m concerned,” he said.

Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, believes some law enforcement agencies in his cash-strapped district in the Rio Grande Valley have become so dependent on the profitable seizures that they routinely misapply the state’s civil forfeiture law.

“In a lot of cases, they’re more focused on trying to find the money than in trying to find the drugs,” he said.

That means law enforcement agencies in the Valley tend to target vehicles heading south into Mexico rather than northbound cars, Hinojosa said, because the southbound vehicles are more likely to be transporting cash — the profits from the drug trade — as opposed to just the drugs.

The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details for all 250m passenger movements in and out of the UK each year.

The computerised pattern of every individual’s travel history will be stored for up to 10 years, the Home Office admits.

The government says the new database, to be housed in an industrial estate in Wythenshawe, near Manchester, is essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and terrorism. However, opposition MPs, privacy campaigners and some government officials fear it is a significant step towards a total surveillance society.

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: “The government seems to be building databases to track more and more of our lives.

“The justification is always about security or personal protection. But the truth is that we have a government that just can’t be trusted over these highly sensitive issues. We must not allow ourselves to become a Big Brother society.”

Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. “A lot of this stuff will have a legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it’s what else it could be used for that presents a problem,” said one.

“It will be able to detect whether parents are taking their children abroad during school holidays. It could be useful to the tax authorities because it will tell them how long non-UK domiciled people are spending in the UK.”

The database is also expected to monitor people’s travel companions.

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, defended the plans. “The UK has one of the toughest borders in the world and we are determined to ensure it stays that way. Our high-tech electronic borders system will allow us to count all passengers in and out and targets those who aren’t willing to play by our rules.”

In a report last week, the House of Lords constitution committee, whose members include Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, called for a significant cutback in the state’s surveillance powers.

It said Britain’s traditions of privacy and democracy were under threat from pervasive and routine electronic spying and the mass collection of personal information.

The Wythenshawe spy centre will house more than 300 police and immigration officers. A similar number of technicians will help check travellers’ details against police, MI5, benefit agency and other government “watch lists”.

The exact location of the new database is a secret within Whitehall, although Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, accidentally let slip during a public talk to officials late last year that it was in the Manchester area. All staff have now been instructed to refer to it only as “a new operations centre in the northwest”.

The database is the unpublicised part of the government’s so-called “e-borders” programme, intended to count everyone who comes in and out of the country by 2014. At the moment the UK Border Agency is running a pilot which monitors the travel movements of passengers on “high-risk” routes from a small number of airports, including Heathrow and Gatwick.

Some 70m passenger movements have been tracked to date, but this is expected to increase to 100m by the end of April. Officials hope that by the end of next year 95% of the 250m annual passenger movements will be logged in the database.

The origins of e-borders stem from 2005 when Tony Blair, then prime minister, was unable to say, during a television interview with the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, how many failed asylum seekers were in Britain.

Under the scheme, once a person buys a ticket to travel to or from the UK by air, sea or rail, the carrier will deliver that person’s data to the agency.

The data is then checked against various watchlists to identify those involved in abuse of UK immigration laws, serious and organised crime, and terrorism.

At the moment limited information about selected routes and travellers is kept on the pilot database run by the agency at an office in Hounslow, west London. In future, all such data will automatically be sent in bulk to the new database, instead of being released in response to specific requests by the authorities.

Victoria state Premier John Brumby described the fire zone as “hell on earth” after touring devastated areas and meeting victims. The toll in lives and destruction was sure to rise further, officials said.

At least 700 homes were destroyed in Saturday’s inferno when searing temperatures and wind blasts produced a firestorm that swept across a swath of the country’s Victoria state, where all the deaths occurred.

Witnesses described seeing trees exploding and skies raining ash as temperatures of up 117 Fahrenheit combined with blasting winds to create furnace-like conditions.

On Sunday, temperatures in the area dropped to about 77 F but along with cooler conditions came wind changes that officials said could push fires in unpredictable directions.

Killed while fleeing
Residents were repeatedly advised on radio and television announcements to initiate their “fire plan” — whether it be staying in their homes to battle the blaze or to evacuate before the roads became too dangerous. But some of the deaths were people who were apparently caught by the fire as they fled in their cars or killed when charred tree limbs fell on their vehicles.

On Sunday, the scene in at least two regions — the town of Marysville and several hamlets in the Kinglake district, both about 50 miles north of the state capital of Melbourne — was utter devastation.

At least 18 of the deaths were from the Kinglake area, where residents said the fire hit with barely any notice.

Mandy Darkin said she was working at a restaurant “like nothing was going on” until they were suddenly told to go home.

“I looked outside the window and said: ‘Whoa, we are out of here, this is going to be bad,’ ” Darkin said. “I could see it coming. I just remember the blackness and you could hear it, it sounded like a train.”

The result will be a “dramatically different” NSC from that of the Bush administration or any of its predecessors since the forum was established after World War II to advise the president on diplomatic and military matters, according to national security adviser James L. Jones, who described the changes in an interview. “The world that we live in has changed so dramatically in this decade that organizations that were created to meet a certain set of criteria no longer are terribly useful,” he said.

Jones, a retired Marine general, made it clear that he will run the process and be the primary conduit of national security advice to Obama, eliminating the “back channels” that at times in the Bush administration allowed Cabinet secretaries and the vice president’s office to unilaterally influence and make policy out of view of the others.

“We’re not always going to agree on everything,” Jones said, and “so it’s my job to make sure that minority opinion is represented” to the president. “But if at the end of the day he turns to me and says, ‘Well, what do you think, Jones?,’ I’m going to tell him what I think.”

The aircraft were unable to download their flight plans after databases were infected by a Microsoft virus they had already been warned about several months beforehand.

At one point French naval staff were also instructed not to even open their computers.

Microsoft had warned that the “Conficker” virus, transmitted through Windows, was attacking computer systems in October last year, but according to reports the French military ignored the warning and failed to install the necessary security measures.

The French newspaper Ouest France said the virus had hit the internal computer network at the French Navy.

Jérome Erulin, French navy spokesman told the paper: “It affected exchanges of information but no information was lost. It was a security problem we had already simulated. We cut the communication links that could have transmitted the virus and 99 per cent of the network is safe.”

However, the French navy admitted that during the time it took to eradicate the virus, it had to return to more traditional forms of communication: telephone, fax and post.

Naval officials said the “infection”‘ was probably due more to negligence than a deliberate attempt to compromise French national security. It said it suspected someone at the navy had used an infected USB key.

The Sicmar Network, on which the most sensitive documents and communications are transmitted was not touched, it said. “The computer virus problem had no effect on the availability of our forces.” The virus attacked the non-secured internal French navy network called Intramar and was detected on 21 January. The whole network was affected and military staff were instructed not to start their computers.

According to Liberation newspaper, two days later the chiefs of staff decided to isolate Intramar from the military’s other computer systems, but certain computers at the Villacoublay air base and in the 8th Transmissions Regiment were infected. Liberation reported that on the 15 and 16 January the Navy’s Rafale aircraft were “nailed to the ground” because they were unable to “download their flight plans”. The aircraft were eventually activated by “another system”.

Liberation also reported that Microsoft had identified the Conficker virus in the autumn of 2008 and had advised users from October last year to update their security patches. IntelligenceOnline reports that “at the heart of the (French) military, the modifications were, for the most part, not done.” It was only on the 16 January “three months later” that the navy chiefs of staffs began to act.

“At that point, the chiefs of staff and the defence ministry had no idea how many computers or military information systems were vulnerable to having been contaminated by the virus,” said Liberation.

“The worst cannot be ruled out,” Strauss-Kahn said in Kuala Lumpur, where he was attending a gathering of central bankers from Southeast Asia. “There’s a lot of downside risk.”

Ten days ago, the IMF cut its world-growth estimate for this year to 0.5 percent, the weakest pace since World War II. Stimulus packages alone won’t succeed in dragging the global economy out of recession unless confidence is restored in the banking system, Strauss-Kahn said today.

“All this will work if, and only if, the different countries are likely to do what they have to do in terms of restructuring the banking sector,” he said. “And today it’s not done.”

The U.S. economy has lost 3.57 million jobs since a recession started in December 2007, its biggest employment slump of any economic contraction in the postwar period as companies from Macy’s Inc. to Caterpillar Inc. cut costs. The U.K. economy will shrink this year by the most since 1946, the IMF forecasts.