Ever wonder “How to get my book reviewed”?

Woman Reading Book
Woman Reading Book/Image Source: ABC News

So you’ve completed your book. Its been edited and published, and now you’re trying to figure out how to get to your potential readers. While beginning your marketing campaign usually happens well before your book is completed, getting your first reviews can’t happen until your book is done or in a final draft status.

Many stores won’t carry a small press or self-published book that doesn’t have reviews from a recognizable publication. So how do you get someone to pay attention to your book among all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions they see every month?

City Book Review, publishers of the San Francisco Book Review, Manhattan Book Review and Kids’ BookBuzz all have programs to help you. Kids BookBuzz is only for kids, tweens and young adult books, but the other two will take almost any book you have (including children’s books).

So how do you get your book reviewed by the San Francisco Book Review?

If your book is within 90 days of the publications date, you can submit it for general review (at no cost). The closer you are to the 90 days, the less of a chance it will have to be reviewed, but you can still start there. The SFBR gets more than 1000 submissions a month, and only reviews 300 or less, so your likelihood of getting your book reviewed in this way is less than 33%. But you can give it a try and see if it gets reviewed.

General Submission Guidelineshttp://www.sanfranciscobookreview.com/submission-guidelines/general-submission/

If your book is more than 90 days past its publishing date, or you really want to have it reviewed and don’t want to just hope it’ll get picked up through the general review, you can go through the Sponsored Review program. While there is some controversy about paying for a review, SFBR is a respected publication like Kirkus or Foreward Reviews and doesn’t offer vanity reviews for payment. You can expect the same level of professionalism from their standard reviews. And they don’t mark sponsored reviews any different than the other reviews.

Get My Book Reviewed from the San Francisco Book Reviewhttp://sanfranciscobookreview.com/submission-guidelines/sponsored-review/

Get My Book Reviewed from the San Francisco Book Review

There are a lot of different options for getting your book reviewed, mostly around how long it takes to get your review back, and if you want more than one or an interview as well.

  • Standard Reviews Take 8-10 weeks for turnaround from the time they receive your book Start at
  • Expedited Reviews Take 3-5 weeks for turnaround from the time they receive your book Start at
  • Get more than one review for the same book you’ll get a discount on the normal cost of 2 or 3 reviews. Reviews range in price from $150 to $299.
  • Getting a podcast interview for Audible Authors to promote yourself and your book, and you can add an interview to a review package at a discount.

And if you really like your review, you can have it posted on the other publication’s website for $99, or get a new review from a different reviewer. Both can help with your marketing and search engine optimization.

So how do you get your book reviewed by the Manhattan Book Review?

The Manhattan Book Review uses the same format for the San Francisco Book Review. Different audience, so if you’re an East Coast author, you might be more interested in having the credit from MBR over SFBR. Personal taste is the only difference between the two for reviews. If you are a local SF or Manhattan author, they will also flag that in your review.

General Review Submission Guidelines for the Manhattan Book Reviewhttp://manhattanbookreview.com/get-my-book-reviewed/general-submission/

Sponsored Review Submission Guidelines for the Manhattan Book Reviewhttp://manhattanbookreview.com/get-my-book-reviewed/sponsored-reviews/

So how do you get your book reviewed by Kids’ BookBuzz?

First thing, all of the reviews for Kids’ BookBuzz are done by kids. They are select age appropriate books, but the kids read them and write the reviews themselves. The younger kids have some help from their parents, but the words are all theirs. Don’t expect any easy reviews either. These kids see a lot of stories, so they know good books when they read them.

General Submission Guidelines for Kids’ BookBuzzhttp://kidsbookbuzz.com/get-my-book-reviewed-by-a-kid/general-submission/

Sponsored Review Submission Guidelines for Kids’ BookBuzzhttp://kidsbookbuzz.com/get-my-book-reviewed-by-a-kid/sponsored-reviews/

How Global Sporting Events Run On Bribes & Help Dictators

Soccer: it’s the sport the rest of the world calls “football”, despite how loud America yells otherwise. It’s also the global obsession that peaks every 4 years with a World Cup. This year’s Cup is about to start in Russia. 2026’s Cup is about to get awarded to the United States and Canada and Mexico, maybe. And everyone is abuzz about which of the perennial contenders (minus Italy, minus the Netherlands) will win it all. That passion for the game means big crowds, big glory, and big money. But did you know it also created the world’s most brazen white collar criminal organization? And helps past and present autocrats keep their stranglehold on power?

On this week’s episode of The Cracked Podcast, Alex Schmidt is joined by Dr. Natalie Koch (Maxwell School at Syracuse University) and by DeMorge Brown (Harmontown, Channel 101) for a deep dive into how soccer’s governing body became a secret Swiss crime family without most fans noticing. They’ll find insanely bold corruption in the sport everywhere from Qatar to Trump Tower. And you’ll discover how soccer, the Olympics, cycling, falconry, and more global sports take our planet’s politics in a weirdly dark direction while also bringing joy to our planet’s people.

Footnotes:

NatalieKoch.com

Critical Geographies of Sport: Space, Power and Sport in Global Perspective (edited by Dr. Natalie Koch)

FIFA Announces Russia, Qatar as World Cup Hosts for 2018, 2022 (Full Presentation)

Soccer’s Culture of Corruption (New York Review Of Books)

Opinion: Did Russia Steal the World Cup? (The New York Times)

FIFA releases report detailing alleged corruption in World Cup bids of Russia and Qatar (Los Angeles Times)

Fifa official took bribes to back Qatar’s 2022 World Cup bid, court hears (The Guardian)

Plot to buy the World Cup: Huge email cache reveals secrets of Qatar’s shock victory (Times of London)

What happened to the Qatar World Cup’s cooling technology? (BBC News)

Revealed: Qatar’s World Cup ‘slaves’ (The Guardian)

Stadium deals, corruption and bribery: the questions at the heart of Brazil’s Olympic and World Cup ‘miracle’ (The Guardian)

How Uruguay broke Brazilian hearts in the 1950 World Cup (BBC News)

Fifa corruption claims: South Africa ‘agreed $10m deal’ (BBC News)

FIFA Took Bribes Over Germany’s 2006 World Cup Bid, Report Says (TIME)

How The 2002 World Cup Became The Most Controversial Tournament in Recent Memory (Vice Sports)

Ex-FIFA official had $6,000-a-month Trump Tower apartment for unruly cats (The Washington Post)

The Economist explains: Vladimir Putin’s macho stunts

Chairman Mao Swims in the Yangtze (TIME 100 Photos)

“Gulf Nationalism and the Geopolitics of Constructing Falconry as a ‘Heritage Sport'” by Dr. Natalie Koch (Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism)

Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (TripAdvisor)

Benito Mussolini skiing & sledding without a shirt on

World Cup stunning moments: Mussolini’s blackshirts’ 1938 win (The Guardian)

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/podcast/how-global-sporting-events-run-bribes-help-dictators

37 Awesomely Cheap Things That Only LOOK Expensive

It’s nice to be surrounded by beautiful things, but it’s even better if those beautiful things don’t cost a fortune. We scoured Amazon for the most stylish items you can buy that also won’t break the bank. At these prices, you can probably snag more than one!

 We hope you find these products as awesome as we do. Just an FYI: 22Words is a participant in the Amazon affiliate program and may receive a share of sales from links on this page.

Advertisement

Read more: http://twentytwowords.com/37-awesomely-cheap-things-that-only-look-expensive/

20+ Times People Found Some Truly Perfect Handwriting Examples That Were Too Good Not To Share (New Pics)

One of the biggest casualties of the digital age has been the fine skill of handwriting, and the opportunities to show off one’s artsy and satisfyingly precise script are diminishing every day. When was the last time you picked up a pen?

While calligraphy continues to flourish in the forms of wedding and event invitations, font design and typography, having nice handwriting doesn’t really get you that much social cred anymore. Luckily, for those who are blessed with natural talent or have worked hard on their craft, there are places on the internet where you are still appreciated! The subreddit penmanshipporn has long been such a place, where scribes come together to share and celebrate the aesthetic value of their pen productions.

Following on from a previous post, we here at Bored Panda have compiled a list of satisfyingly neat and creative handwriting for your viewing pleasure. Scroll down below to check them out for yourself, and let us know which ones you find the most aesthetically pleasing!

Kanye West Clarifies His Statement About Slavery Being ‘A Choice’ Read His Latest Tweets!

Kanye West can’t stay out of trouble…

As we reported, during his appearance on TMZ Live on Tuesday, the Famous rapper raised eyebrows when he made the following statement about slavery during a conversation about “free thought”:

“When you hear about slavery for 400 years. For 400 years?! That sounds like a choice.”

Not surprisingly, a TMZ staffer got offended, and the two had an intense face-to-face.

Related: Kanye West Further Explains His Pro-Trump Sentiments

Later that day, Kim Kardashian‘s husband went on Twitter to further elaborate on his controversial words. While he agrees slaves did not have “free will,” the musician believes they were “mentally enslaved” to have “stayed in that position.”

He wrote:

The 40-year-old then compares himself to historical legends like Harriet Tubman and Nat Turner, who made extraordinary efforts to help free enslaved individuals.

And yes, Ye believes what he is doing now is going to be in future history books.

Oh boy…

[Image via WENN.]

Read more: http://perezhilton.com/2018-05-01-kanye-west-slavery-comment-twitter-clarification/?from=topstory_perezhilton

From Ferraris to flying taxis: Q&A with Liliums new head of Product Design

Munich-based Lilium, the super-ambitious company developing an electric vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) jet and accompanying “air taxi” service, continues to hire top talent to make its vision a reality. The latest new recruitment is car design veteran Frank Stephenson, who has previously worked for Ferrari, Maserati and Mini, to name but a few.

Considered one of the world’s most renowned and influential car designers in recent times, 58-year-old Stephenson’s portfolio includes iconic designs such as the BMW X5, New MINI, Ferrari F430, Maserati MC12 and McLaren P1. Now he’s embarking on adding the Lilium jet to that list.

Officially starting next month, he’ll be tasked with recruiting an entirely new design team to shape both the interior and exterior of the jet itself, as well as a design language for the company’s wider infrastructure, including landing pads and departure lounges.

In a call with Stephenson yesterday morning, I got to ask him why he’s ditched Ferraris for flying taxis, what his new role will entail more specifically and to dig a little deeper into how he thinks about design and why good design really matters. A lightly edited transcript of the full Q&A follows.

TC: I don’t know a huge amount about designing cars, let alone designing cars that can fly. Designing a modern-day car involves a heck of a lot of people and designing something like the Lilium jet again involves a whole team of people. As head of design, how does your role fit into the larger machine of building a vehicle or “flying car?”

So if you have a Michelin-rated restaurant and you’ve got to feed 100 people, you’re going to have quite a few cooks in there and the waiters and everybody else to run the machine. But the chef, the guy that’s got the Michelin stars… gets all the credit for it. But it’s all the other guys doing the work for him and he’s basically overseeing it and he’s trying to keep everything moving along the right track. That’s kind of what it’s like. I mean, I’m not probably your standard type of design director because I like to get in and cook and mix up the stuff too. I just have never been able to stop getting my hands dirty. I guess in that respect, the design directors come across often as prima donnas almost and sit back and watch the guys work and every now and then say he likes it or he doesn’t like it. But I am more of a hands-on type of director.

I like to build small teams. I don’t like huge teams because it takes a lot longer to get things done and the energy sometimes isn’t as strong with a big team as it is with a smaller team. You’ve got to work faster and much more focused and much more efficiently to get the amount of work done. So that sort of builds the steam up in the pressure cooker, but if you love design it’s absolutely the right temperature to be working at. You want to be under pressure to deliver great design. And typically if you think about a design too long, it gets watered down and loses that character, that pureness that you had at the beginning. So smaller teams tend to come up with better ideas I think, or more dramatic ideas, than huge companies with huge design teams.

I don’t set the brief because that comes from marketing, what product segment or what market segment the product should fit. So if they’re telling us to design a two-seater vehicle or a five-seater vehicle or whatever then that becomes the target of the design team to deliver in a certain time span. What I do is I meet with the marketing guys, I meet with engineering guys.

The engineering guys will lay out what we call a package, where all the critical components are for the vehicle. With a car it is typically “Where does the passenger and the driver sit? Where are the wheels and where is the engine and how much trunk or boot space are we going to have?” Things like that. And then I work around all those components with the aerodynamic engineers, suspension and everything.

What I have to do basically is get the team going with theme ideas and really innovative breakthrough ideas, because that’s what designers do. They don’t repeat stuff, they have to come up with stuff that basically moves the game forward. You’ve got to create within this design team a kind of awesome childlike creativity and emotion feeling. It takes a lot of brainstorming and inspiration. You sort of set the tone of that kind of atmosphere within design to get the designers going and then the mood gains momentum.

I’m very advanced in the way I think — I have to be because of the way design is geared, you do a lot of computer work — but I typically make sure that we all start pen on paper sketching, because that is really the only way to get a design or a spark out of your mind. If you go through a computer it loses the human… So I pretty much try to keep the design team on paper as long as possible.

The moment we come up with great ideas, we work with engineers. Typically I try to get engineers and designers working together in the same studio or very tightly together so there’s no loss of traction, and to make sure that what we’re doing can be made. We typically create scale models out of clay. We maybe do two, maybe three, different designs, and as those designs evolve one will get chosen as the favorite theme. That goes to full-scale. And then when this clay model is finally approved by engineering, and approved by finance, and approved by marketing, and approved by design, we will recommend that to the CEO and he’ll have a look at it if he hasn’t followed throughout the process, and then that product will become the model for prototyping and we’ll take molds off of it and create the real panels for the car and then it goes into production. Pretty much that’s it in a nutshell.

As a design director I have to control everything from the look to the color to the ergonomics to the feasibility of it. And then with Lilium the requirements will probably branch out over into what the Lilium port will look like that you access to get into your jet. So the whole kind of environment from an aesthetic or emotional point of view.

TC: Give me more of a sense of the relationship between design and engineering (or form and function)… Aren’t you somewhat constrained in your imagination by the science of flying?

No, that’s what a bad designer would tell you, “I’m constrained, that’s why the vehicle doesn’t look as good as it should.” But the fact is he’s getting paid the big bucks to make that thing look good and if he can’t make it look good he’s just not good enough. So there’s no excuse in my book for bad design or anything that looks bad. Absolutely no excuse. Anything can be made beautiful and should be made desirable, obviously.

We have to have constraints because safety and engineering require that. If we don’t have constraints then designers aren’t designers they’re just artists and they’re not doing the job. You can make a pretty picture but if it doesn’t work at the end of the day then you haven’t really designed anything, you’ve just drawn a pretty picture.

So in terms of constraints, yeah, but that is what makes the game so fun for a designer, that you’re working within rules and legislation and restrictions which make it a challenge. That’s why you get good-looking cars and other cars that don’t look as good. Like I said, if there is a beautiful small car, why aren’t all small cars beautiful? It’s a taste thing obviously. Some people like some designs, a lot of people like other designs. But good design is absolutely not subjective. There’s good design and bad design, and there are a lot of bad designs out there — not to knock them or criticize — but there are principles for good design that designers typically learn when they’re being educated. If you don’t apply those laws of good design then you’re not going to have a good design.

Inspiration for good design comes from a lot of different sources, but if you’re looking at inspiration from trendy sources like fashion or other types of design that are in one day and out the next then you’re not gonna have a timeless design or an iconic design. Iconic designs are typically timeless designs, they last forever. Anything that was designed iconically 40 years ago will still look great 40 years in the future. The design is so good that it just lasts and lasts and lasts. It is hard to achieve that, but if you use the right type of mental design approach then it’s achievable.

I think designing cars is not harder or easier than designing an aircraft, it’s just making the absolutely best product you can make that works well. Typically if you design something that works very, very well it looks fantastic. If you design something that doesn’t work very well then the design doesn’t matter at the end of the day. One of the interesting things is people always say that form follows function. I’ve never heard anything more ridiculous in my life because for me form equals function. If the product works well, it looks great. There’s nothing in the world that works fantastically well and looks awful, that combination doesn’t exist. Especially in nature. You look at all these beautiful animals and organisms in nature that work incredibly well, and therein lies the beauty of nature. Horses and cheetahs and all these amazing animals, nobody sat down and designed this amazing-looking animal. Evolution caused it to be absolutely fantastic at what it does, and through being fantastic at what it does, the result is the look, and that look is awesome. That same principle is how I feel about design. If you work very good with the engineers and you create optimized solutions, it’s very easy to make them look good, it’s almost inherent in that way.

TC: Regarding the Lilium jet… what is the main challenge in your mind of designing what is a new type of transportation?

My challenge — simply put — is to make the person who gets into the jet not want to get out of it. You know. Although he’s reached his destination he’ll want to do it again and again and again. The reason behind that is because all the new generations coming along after the old farts like us are basically looking for experiences. They’re not so much geared towards buying materialistic things. They love experiences. And that’s what Lilium is going to be offering, an experience and a service. And I see that as the future. For me it’s an amazing opportunity to be able to take something from scratch and develop it into a reality.

It’s always been a sort of science fiction, when you see The Jetsons, the cartoons and things… it’s like, one day, but not in my lifetime. Well, here’s news for the world, it’s coming before they know it and it’s going to be here very, very soon. And these things have to look as amazing as the technology that they’re bringing with them.

What I need to do is not just make it an incredible aesthetic joy to be in, but when you get inside one of these things you don’t want to get out of it. It’s going to be the experiences that you have when you’re inside this transportation device. If you could just take that situation of being inside a capsule, what would you want to occur there? You want to relax, you want to socialize, you want to work, you want to be entertained. All that is now incredibly possible.

I mean all the advances … where everything coming now is digital and so real that you can actually imagine something on the inside being the new wave of entertainment. So basically you’re in your private space, you get to turn it into a virtual world where you’re being transported from A to B or wherever your destination is. And within that space in time you’re in the ideal atmosphere. You’re not really sitting in a plane and just going along for the ride, which is what you do pretty much in a taxi. All the new materials that are coming about at the moment in terms of seats, flooring, lighting, buttons, displays, image projection, sounds and temperature control. You know all the things that we try to shoot into new cars as a next step for luxury, those are just going to become everyday things that are making the whole ride an incredible experience.

Regretfully they’ll be a lot shorter in duration because of the nature of the jet being you know very high-speed and all that. But it’s kind of like if you can imagine somebody who loves roller coasters they’re always at the end thinking “oh my gosh that was too quick, I want to do this thing again.” That is the kind of positive feeling you should have when you get out of the vehicle.

TC: I saw this documentary a while back that made the point that the world we live in is predominately designed by humans and therefore design can make or break our everyday experiences. As a designer, is it really difficult for you living in a world where, let’s face it, a lot of design is awful?

Some designers take it as a job. Other people just live it. And design is all about making the world a better place not a prettier place. That’s [just] a consequence of making it a better place, but making it a better place is what the end goal should be. It’s a shame that there aren’t more designers in the world thinking about making the world a better place.

TC: How did you get this job ? Did they come to you? Were you just like, “I’ve done cars, I want to do something new”?

It was fate, that thing when two separate paths suddenly collide. I think it was more like that. I’d left McLaren in November 2017, not because I was frustrated or anything like that but because I thought there was something bigger than just designing products that nobody really needs, they just desired and want. What was I doing, I was just clogging up the road networks even more and not making the world a better place, probably a more exciting place, but not socially better. And so I left with my ideas of starting my own design studio, which I’ve been sort of kicking off, in terms of how to improve the world, and then I heard about Lilium and Lilium contacted me.

It was just a match made in heaven. It met all my principles of working for an exciting and incredibly innovative company from the very beginning. To be able to establish a design department for them with a design DNA, a design language, the design team, the studio. Doing something for the future of humanity. Staying with transportation, but making it even better than it ever was. Making something science fiction reality.

TC: Are there any particular designers or designs that you can point to and say that designer or product has stood the test of time?

That’s really, really tough. I can tell you specific products for their aesthetic value but I think I have to go deeper than that because you know everybody admires different designers for different reasons. If you could put two guys together that would be da Vinci and Einstein. I mean da Vinci was probably the guy because he not only could paint and draw and all that but he was also an incredible engineer and he figured out how to make these things work and he wanted things to look great too. So if I could say one person for me it would be da Vinci more than anybody else just because the guy could paint, the guy could engineer. Anything he ever touched was absolutely amazing. He was doing flying machines way back too. I like his natural approach. I like people who are really in tune with nature because for me that’s the best inspiration we have. He came up with things that never existed before for the benefit of humanity. Pretty much. If he would have been that kind of guy today he would be the absolutely most awesome human being on earth. I’ve got tons of books on his works and him, and everything like that, just because he’s so inspiring to me.

Read more: https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/23/ferraris-to-flying-taxis/

Jokes aside, here are the 6 Michelle Wolf quotes from the WHCD we should be talking about.

Comedian, screenwriter, and activist Michelle Wolf hosted the 2018 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. And, well, she didn’t hold back.

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Netflix.

The dinner hosts journalists, comedians, and politicians from around the nation. The president is usually in the audience, but Donald Trump opted not to attend for the second year in a row.

The impressive, raunchy, and downright unapologetic Wolf used the momentous opportunity to mesh comedy and reality to shed a light on the serious, problematic situations happening in America right now. Many pundits have referred to her performance as “controversial,” and it’s become the talk of American media.

Some people were genuinely amused.

Others — not so much.

Many pointed out the hypocrisy of the controversy.

And Wolf? Well, she took it all in stride.

Whether your liked Wolf’s jokes or not, there’s no doubt that she spoke a lot of truth and sparked some deep thoughts about very real things taking place right now. Here were some of the most poignant issues she pointed out:

1. Congress can take forever to accomplish things.

“Just a reminder to everyone. I’m here to make jokes. I have no agenda. I’m not trying to get anything accomplished, so everyone that’s here from Congress, you should feel right at home.”

American government, particularly Congress, has long been criticized for failure to pass commonsense laws, move away from corruption and greed in the system, and foster a bipartisan government that functions successfully. In the past few months, those struggles have largely been amplified as Americans continue to grow weary with their congresspeople.

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Netflix.

2. White male privilege is a real thing when it comes to sexual assault.

“I would drag him here myself, but it turns out the president of the United States is the one pussy you’re not allowed to grab.”

When a recording of Trump boasting about grabbing women by their vaginas went viral, most assumed he was no longer a viable candidate.

But, alas, “locker room talk” seemed to not matter to a large number of voters. Even as disturbing allegations continue to emerge about Trump’s sexual misconduct, he has remained relatively unscathed. He still sits in the most powerful office with no signs of being removed for his actions.

3. The media’s role in putting Trump where he is — and keeping him there.

“He has helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you are profiting from him.”

The media — from both sides of the political spectrum — played a huge role in letting Trump and his accompanying racist, misogynistic behavior get this far. Though complicated, media and the organizations that help circulate media directly and indirectly played large roles in the outcome of the 2016 election and the current state of affairs. Journalists have a responsibility to deliver credible, valuable information, and Wolf’s dig was a poignant reminder of that.

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Netflix.

4. Roy Moore’s underage (and non-criminalized) sexual crimes exist.

“I’m 32, which is a weird age — 10 years too young to host this event and 20 years too old for Roy Moore.”

Roy Moore served as a chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. He was also the Republican nominee in the 2017 special election in Alabama to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacated seat, a race he lost to candidate Doug Jones after allegations surfaced of sexual assault against underage women. Still supported by a vast majority of the GOP, Moore managed to be a contending candidate and only lost by a small margin — a confusing fact considering some of his constituents’ avowed dedication to “family values.”

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Netflix.

5. The absurd argument to arm teachers instead of giving them the actual teaching tools they need.

“He wants to give teachers guns, and I support that because then they can sell them for things they need like supplies.”

Teachers have been protesting for weeks all across the United States. Decades-old books, desks that are falling apart, and the inability to afford school supplies for hundreds of students are just some of the issues that underpaid teachers face across the country. Instead of working to create additional funding to address these issues, the Trump administration used the Parkland school shooting as a call for arming teachers with guns. It’s ludicrous, it’s frustrating, and it flies in the face of the legitimate concerns teachers have been voicing for years.

6. The water crisis in Flint, Michigan, is still happening.

“Flint still doesn’t have clean water.”

In a mic-dropping moment, Wolf wrapped up her remarks declaring that Flint still doesn’t have clean water. A city filled predominantly with people of color, Flint continues to struggle with a water crisis. Lead contamination in the water there began four years ago, but the corroded pipes won’t be fully replaced until at least 2020 — and the government has ceased the bottled water program that many people there were relying on.

Wolf’s remarks were bold, wild, and shockingly on-point. Regardless of what you think of her delivery, she spoke candidly about things we should all think a bit more about.

Read more: http://www.upworthy.com/jokes-aside-here-are-the-6-michelle-wolf-quotes-from-the-whcd-we-should-be-talking-about

Blockchain Is About to Revolutionize the Shipping Industry

  • Maersk, APL, Hyundai race to build paperless cargo system
  • Adoption of blockchain could generate $1 trillion in trade

Globalization has brought the most advanced trading networks the world has seen, with the biggest, fastest vessels, robot-operated ports and vast computer databases tracking cargoes. But it all still relies on millions and millions of paper documents.

That last throwback to 19th century trade is about to fall. A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S and other container shipping lines have teamed up with technology companies to upgrade the world’s most complex logistics network.

The prize is a revolution in world trade on a scale not seen since the move to standard containers in the 1960s — a change that ushered in the age of globalization. But the undertaking is as big as the potential upheaval it will cause. To make it work, dozens of shipping lines and thousands of related businesses around the world — including manufacturers, banks, insurers, brokers and port authorities — will have to work out a protocol that can integrate all the new systems onto one vast platform.

Should they succeed, documentation that takes days will eventually be done in minutes, much of it without the need for human input. The cost of moving goods across continents could drop dramatically, adding fresh impetus to relocate manufacturing or source materials and goods from overseas.

“This would be the biggest innovation in the industry since the containerization,” said Rahul Kapoor, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence in Singapore. “It basically brings more transparency and efficiency. The container shipping lines are coming out of their shells and playing catch-up in technology.”

The key, as in so many other industries, from oil tankers to cryptocurrencies, is blockchain, the electronic ledger system that allows transactions to be verified autonomously. And the benefits wouldn’t be confined to shipping. Improving communications and border administration using blockchain could generate an additional $1 trillion in global trade, according to the World Economic Forum.

APL Ltd., owned by the world’s third-largest container line CMA CGM SA, together with Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, Accenture Plc, a European customs organization and other companies said last month that they’ve tested a blockchain-based platform. South Korea’s Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. held trial runs last year using a system developed with Samsung SDS Co.

The shipping paper trail begins when a cargo owner books space on a ship to move goods. Documents need to be filled in and approved before cargo can enter or leave a port. A single shipment can require hundreds pages that need to be physically delivered to dozens of different agencies, banks, customs bureaus and other entities.

Trail of Roses

In 2014, Maersk followed a refrigerated container filled with roses and avocados from Kenya to the Netherlands. The company found that almost 30 people and organizations were involved in processing the box on its journey to Europe. The shipment took about 34 days to get from the farm to the retailers, including 10 days waiting for documents to be processed. One of the critical documents went missing, only to be found later amid a pile of paper.

“The paperwork and processes vital to global trade are also one of its biggest burdens,” according to Maersk, the world’s largest container shipping company, which has teamed up with International Business Machines Corp. to enable real-time tracking of its cargo and documents using blockchain. “The paper trail research that Maersk did uncovered the extent of the burden that documents and processes inflict on trade and the consequences.”

That plethora of paper processors has been one of the reasons shipping has lagged behind other industries in moving to electronic forms. The variety of different languages, laws and organizations involved in moving cargoes in the past made standardization a slow process.

Instead the industry has relied on advances in transport technology and cargo handling to improve efficiency, with the great Clipper sailing vessels replaced by steamships and then modern oil-powered leviathans – the largest ships on the oceans. In the 1850s, it took more than three months to move chests of tea from southern China to London. Today, that journey would take about 30 days.

The biggest change came in the 1960s, when the industry adopted the standard-size steel boxes in use today, replacing the wooden crates, chests and sacks that stevedores had hauled on the docks for centuries.

With these containers sometimes holding products from different suppliers, and ship cargoes sometimes ending up with thousands of customers in dozens of countries, the transition to a uniform electronic system presents major challenges.

“Not all stakeholders are looking at deploying the same blockchain solution and platforms,” APL said in response to questions. “This can pose as a challenge if stakeholders are expected to trade via a common platform or solution.”

And the shipping lines will also need to persuade the ports and other organizations involved in cargo trading to adopt their systems. Maersk said Singapore-based port operator PSA International Pte. and APM Terminals, based in The Hague, Netherlands, will use its platform. APL and Accenture said they plan to pilot their product by the end of this year. Accenture said it has tested its technology with other pilot shipments that range from beer to medical supplies.

The cost savings could be visible in the companies’ financial statements in about two years, Kapoor of Bloomberg Intelligence said.

“Shipping needs to stop thinking about itself as this standalone middle sector,” said K D Adamson, chief executive officer of Futurenautics Group. “It needs to start thinking about how the different elements of shipping fit into other ecosystems.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-18/drowning-in-a-sea-of-paper-world-s-biggest-ships-seek-a-way-out

Judge Slows U.S. Review of Trump Lawyers Records: Cohen Update

After an afternoon of pitched arguments over who should have the right to vet documents seized from President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, a federal judge in New York delayed a decision on whether to appoint an impartial “special master” to conduct the review.

U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood said that federal authorities who seized documents from the lawyer, Michael Cohen, would provide copies to Cohen’s team. A lawyer for Cohen said they could provide a list of proposed special masters by Tuesday. The government will also provide names.

The judge voiced confidence in federal prosecutors and stressed that she didn’t want to slow down the matter. “I have faith in the Southern District U.S. attorney’s office that their integrity is unimpeachable,” Wood said. She said her interest is in “getting this moving”speedily and efficiently.

Prosecutors will consult with the filter team and the FBI to get a better estimate of the volume of records. They will supply Wood by early Wednesday with an estimate of how long it will take to get the records to Cohen’s attorneys. Lawyers for both sides will then confer about proposed electronic search terms for the documents.

A Matter of Speed (4:27 p.m.)

The judge signaled an openness to using a so-called taint team as suggested by the government, to consult with lawyers for Cohen and Trump and try to reach agreement on whether particular documents are protected.

There are two threads of argument in the courtroom. Lawyers for Trump and Cohen are arguing for a process that insures that attorney-client privilege is preserved. The government is saying that it has an option that would preserve due process, but without bogging down.

McKay, the assistant U.S. attorney, argues that the special master that the Cohen team favors would be an “extremely inefficient” process. “Where Mr. Cohen is now obviously under criminal investigation, he’s going to have even more incentive to drag things out by claiming privilege,” McKay said.

Meanwhile, he said, Hendon’s idea turns on finding time for the president to review documents and sign off on them. “It’s going to be very difficult for her to get the president of the United States’ time to consult a privilege log if there are 100 items on it,” McKay said.

A filter team, McKay said, honors the privilege as well as law-enforcement interests. If, for example, a government team reviewed 500 communications between Cohen and Trump and none of them had relationship to investigation, they wouldn’t forward them to investigators, the prosecutor said. The team would review documents twice before any go to prosecutors.
“It narrows the field,” he said.

Wood made at least one plea to keep things moving when Hendon pointed out she has no idea what to tell Trump about what’s in Cohen’s files.

The judge interrupted Hendon. “You’re getting into areas that we don’t need to address now,” Wood said. (Bob Van Voris)

Hannity on Air: ‘Michael Never Represented Me’ (4:01 p.m.)

Sean Hannity, who was poised to do a radio show when his name emerged in the court, said on air that he had asked Cohen for his perspective on some legal questions involving attorney-client privilege, but never talked to Cohen about any case involving a third party.

“I never paid legal fees to Michael,” Hannity said. “Michael never represented me in any matter.” He later added: I “may have” handed Cohen “ten bucks” and asked for attorney-client privilege. (Steven Dennis)

What’s a Privilege Log? (3:45 p.m.)

A privilege log is a document that gives information about evidence withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, typically including the type of communication — whether a letter, email or notes of a phone call — along with the date and parties to the communication.

Trump’s lawyer, Hendon, acknowledged that privilege logs are “a real pain for everybody” but said they’re necessary to safeguard the privilege.

She argued that the attorney-client privilege has been recognized for more than 400 years and is one of the oldest legal privileges under common law. “It is a beacon to the world and to history,” she said. “Without it no client could speak freely with counsel, and no attorney could properly serve the client.”

Most people would react similarly if told that criminal prosecutors raided their lawyer’s office, seized materials related to their case and were told the prosecutors were going to review them to determine if they were privileged, she said.

“It is the client of the lawyer who owns the privilege. The purpose now should be on ensuring that the privilege is not invaded,” Hendon said. (Bob Van Voris and David Voreacos)

Judge Asks How Long a Record Review Would Take (3:39 pm)

The judge asked how long it would take for everything that was seized to be organized for review — and how long Hendon’s client, the president, would have to devote to the task. McKay said that while some of the devices the FBI seized will need to be decrypted, most of the evidence could be posted “in a week or two.”

The government claims that for any communications between Cohen and Trump or another client, a so-called taint team will consult with lawyers for Cohen and Trump and try to reach agreement on whether particular documents are protected. Disputes will be brought to the court to determine the issue before the team investigating the case would have access to the documents.

McKay said that without a taint team, it could take a very long time for the defense to review the documents. He noted that in the Lynn Stewart case, there were just a few boxes and it took more than a year to complete the review.

Trump lawyer Hendon said she couldn’t estimate how long it would take to review the material until they know what has been seized. (Bob Van Voris and David Voreacos)

Invoking POTUS’s Name (3:18 p.m.)

Cohen’s legal team will invoke Trump’s name frequently in filings not because he was a Cohen client but because they want to slow down the case, McKay, the U.S. assistant attorney, said. “It is in Mr. Cohen’s interest to do so,” McKay said.

Wood seemed to voice skepticism about Cohen’s argument that they can move quickly to determine which documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege. “It’s not that you’re bad people. You’ve mis-cited the law,” she told a Cohen lawyer. (Bob Van Voris)

Hannity’s Journalism in New Light (3:08 p.m.)

No word yet why Hannity had engaged Cohen. Clearly there’ll be keen interest in the legal side of this matter. Until then the scrutiny may fall on what may have been hidden motivations behind his journalism.

Take this tweet from Hannity’s verified account on April 11: “Up next on #Hannity @michellemalkin & @SebGorka join me to discuss how the media’s anti-Trump agenda has hit a new low since the Michael Cohen raid.”

Hannity Responds to Disclosure He Is Third Client (3:03 p.m.)

“We have been friends a long time. I have sought legal advice from Michael,” Hannity told Rebecca Ballhaus of the Wall Street Journal.

Client No. 3 Is Sean Hannity (2:52 p.m.)

A gasp was heard in the courtroom when a Cohen lawyer disclosed the name of the third client: Sean Hannity.

Hannity is a Fox News host and has been one of the president’s most vocal on-air defenders. and a critic of Mueller’s probe. Trump often calls Hannity after his Fox News program, according to media reports.

“I understand he doesn’t want his name out there, but that isn’t the law,” Judge Wood said. (David Voreacos)

Judge Says Client No. 3 Must Be Named Publicly (2:46 p.m.)

Wood heard from various sides on whether Cohen must publicly reveal the identity of Cohen’s third client, and ordered him to do so.

A Cohen lawyer, Stephen Ryan, had said that the third client, whom Cohen initially would not name, told Cohen over the weekend not to allow his name to get out. The person is publicly prominent and Ryan offered instead to put the name in a sealed envelope for the judge, saying the client has said he’ll appeal if Judge Wood orders his name disclosed.

“At this point, no one would want to be associate with the case in that way,” Ryan said. “I can give you the name right now in a sealed envelope and provide it to the court.”

Robert Balin, a lawyer representing the press’s interests in the case, objected to allowing Client 3 to remain anonymous, saying there’s “intense public interest in the issues that are before this court.” (Bob Van Voris and David Voreacos)

U.S. Calls Cohen Argument Frivolous (2:42 p.m.)

McKay, the assistant U.S. attorney, said the government properly obtained search warrants, saying Cohen had made a “frivolous” argument that the raid violated his Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches.

McKay said it’s improper to attempt to drum up media attention to the case and then cite that attention as a basis for their application for discretion.

“The only thing that makes this case unusual in any respect is that one of Mr. Cohen’s clients is the president,” McKay said, saying that neither party has made a persuasive argument as to why the materials are privileged. (David Voreacos and Chris Dolmetsch)

‘Taint Team’ (2:39 p.m.)

Cohen’s lawyers asked Wood to let them review the seized material first or, as a fallback, appoint a neutral special master to review evidence seized from Cohen. Trump’s lawyers didn’t support a special master.

The lawyers raised the case of Lynne Stewart, the former lawyer for imprisoned Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. She was convicted in 2005 of providing material support for terrorism. A jury found that she helped pass messages from her client to his followers in a foreign terrorist organization. In Stewart’s case the judge agreed with a defense request to appoint a special master.

Prosecutors argue that in many searches of lawyers’ offices a separate “taint team” of agents and prosecutors is selected to review the evidence and make an initial determination of whether they’re privileged. Once all disputes over privilege claims are resolved, the remaining documents are passed on to a “clean team” of prosecutors that hasn’t been exposed to the protected documents.

“Granting such relief would mark a serious departure from the accepted, normal practices of this district and erect an unprecedented and unwarranted obstacle to the government’s ability to investigate attorneys for their own conduct, in this case or any other,” the U.S. argued in a letter to the judge early Monday. (Bob Van Voris)

‘Three Legal Clients’ (2:34 p.m.)

The Justice Department says Cohen has more attorneys of his own than he has clients, challenging Cohen’s prior claim that the materials swept up in the FBI raids included thousands of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.

“His letter admits this morning that he has only three legal clients, and this is fatal to their motion,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas McKay.

Most of the evidence seized is on hard drives and other electronic devices and pertains to work he’s done in recent years, McKay said. Anything related to work Cohen did for legal clients would be a small portion of anything seized given how little work he’s done lately as a lawyer, he said.

Cohen’s arguments in a letter to the court earlier Monday — saying he believed that privileged information had been taken relating to clients he’d represented years ago — are therefore moot, McKay argued.

“Mr. Cohen might have a legal degree, but this investigation and the search is largely focused on his private business dealings and his private financial dealings,” McKay said (David Voreacos and Chris Dolmetsch)

Hearing Gets Under Way (2:12 p.m.)

The hearing over Cohen’s records got under way shortly after 2 p.m. Watching from the gallery was not only Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, but also former Governor Elliot Spitzer of New York, who made a surprise appearance for reasons that weren’t immediately clear.

Also in attendance is Robert Balin, a lawyer with Davis Wright Tremaine who said he’s representing a consortium of media outlets including ABC TV. He said he filed a request with Wood asking her to make an audio recording of the hearing available for the news media and the public. Balin told Bloomberg News that the practice is used by the Supreme Court and Second Circuit. (Patricia Hurtado)

Meet the Judge (2:12 p.m.)

Wood was nominated to the federal court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and confirmed the following year. In 1990, she sentenced Michael Milken to 10 years in prison, which was later reduced to two years.

President Bill Clinton nominated her as his pick for attorney general in 1993 after his previous nominee, Zoe Baird, withdrew over off-the-books payments to her nanny, an undocumented worker. Wood, who’d hired an undocumented babysitter before it was illegal to do so and paid the required taxes, was also withdrawn.

In 2010, Wood presided over a case against Anna Chapman and nine other Russian agents who were arrested and then deported in a prisoner exchange. (Bob Van Voris)

What’s at Stake

President Donald Trump is fighting an extraordinary legal battle in Manhattan on Monday, seeking to stop his own Justice Department from reviewing records seized from his longtime private lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Among those expected to attend a hearing at the federal district court in Manhattan is Stormy Daniels, the adult-film star who claims she had sex with Trump in 2006 and took a $130,000 hush payment shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen, who has said he made the payment from his own account, has been ordered to attend.

Cohen’s home, office, hotel room and safety-deposit box were raided by the FBI on April 9 as part of a long-running criminal investigation of his activities. Prosecutors in New York haven’t identified what specifically they’re probing, although they said in a court filing that “the crimes being investigated involve acts of concealment by Cohen.” Special Counsel Robert Mueller is separately examining possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 election.

It’s unusual enough for federal agents to seize an attorney’s records, and unprecedented to take those of a president’s personal lawyer. Federal prosecutors want a team of government lawyers to review the material to determine what’s covered by the attorney-client privilege and what can be passed to investigators.

Cohen is asking for the review to be conducted by a court-appointed attorney. Trump will be represented by his own lawyer, Joanna Hendon, who has requested that the president be given a chance to review the seized materials, which includes more than a dozen electronic devices.

The matter will ultimately be decided by U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-16/trump-worlds-collide-as-cohen-meets-stormy-daniels-in-n-y-court

A Hurricane Flattens Facebook

Two weeks ago, Facebook learned that The New York Times, Guardian, and Observer were working on blockbuster stories based on interviews with a man named Christopher Wylie. The core of the tale was familiar but the details were new, and now the scandal was attached to a charismatic face with a top of pink hair. Four years ago, a slug of Facebook data on 50 million Americans was sucked down by a UK academic named Aleksandr Kogan, and wrongly sold to Cambridge Analytica. Wylie, who worked at the firm and has never talked publicly before, showed the newspapers a trove of emails and invoices to prove his allegations. Worse, Cambridge appears to have lied to Facebook about entirely deleting the data.

To Facebook, before the stories went live, the scandal appeared bad but manageable. The worst deeds had been done outside of Facebook and long ago. Plus, like weather forecasters in the Caribbean, Facebook has been busy lately. Just in the past month, they’ve had to deal with scandals created by vacuous Friday tweets from an ad executive, porn, the darn Russian bots, angry politicians in Sri Lanka, and even the United Nations. All of those crises have passed with limited damage. And perhaps that’s why the company appears to have underestimated the power of the storm clouds moving in.

Facebook has burned its fingers on issues of data privacy frequently in its 14 year history. But this time it was different.

On Friday night, the company made its first move, jumping out in front of the news reports to publish its own blog post announcing that it was suspending Cambridge Analytica’s use of the platform. It also made one last stern appeal to ask The Guardian not to use the word “breach” in its story. The word, the company argued, was inaccurate. Data had been misused, but moats and walls had not been breached. The Guardian apparently did not find that argument sympathetic or persuasive. On Saturday its story appeared, “Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach.”

The crisis was familiar in a way: Facebook has burned its fingers on issues of data privacy frequently in its 14 year history. But this time it was different. The data leakage hadn’t helped Unilever sell mayonnaise. It appeared to have helped Donald Trump sell a political vision of division and antipathy. The news made it look as if Facebook’s data controls were lax and that its executives were indifferent. Around the world lawmakers, regulators, and Facebook users began asking very publicly how they could support a platform that didn’t do more to protect them. Soon, powerful politicians were chiming in and demanding to hear from Zuckerberg.

As the storm built over the weekend, Facebook’s executives, including Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, strategized and argued late into the night. They knew that the public was hammering them, but they also believed that the fault lay much more with Cambridge Analytica than with them. Still, there were four main questions that consumed them. How could they tighten up the system to make sure this didn’t happen again? What should they do about all the calls for Zuckerberg to testify? Should they sue Cambridge Analytica? And what could they do about psychologist Joseph Chancellor, who had helped found Kogan’s firm and who now worked, of all places, at Facebook?

By Monday, Facebook remained frozen, and Zuckerberg and Sandberg stayed silent. Then, late in the afternoon in Menlo Park, more bad news came. The New York Times reported that Alex Stamos, the company’s well-respected chief of security, had grown dissatisfied with the top of senior management and was planning to exit in a few months. Some people had known this for a while, but it was still a very bad look. You don’t want news about your head of data security bailing when you’re having a crisis about how to secure your data. And then news broke that Facebook had been denied in its efforts to get access to Cambridge Analytica’s servers. The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office, which had started an investigation, would handle that.

A company-wide Q&A was called for Tuesday but for some reason it was led by Facebook’s legal counsel, not its leaders, both of whom have remained deafeningly silent and both of whom reportedly skipped the session. Meanwhile, the stock had collapsed, chopping $36 billion off the company’s market value on Monday. By mid-Tuesday morning, it had fallen 10 percent since the scandal broke. What the company expected to be a tough summer storm had turned into a Category 5 hurricane.

Walking in the Front Door

The story of how Kogan ended up with data on 50 million American Facebook users sounds like it should involve secret handshakes and black hats. But Kogan actually got his Facebook data by just walking in Facebook’s front door and asking for it. Like all technology platforms, Facebook encourages outside software developers to build applications to run inside it, just like Google does with its Android operating system and Apple does with iOS. And so in November 2013 Kogan, a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge, created an application developer account on Facebook and explained why he wanted access to Facebook’s data for a research project. He started work soon thereafter.

Kogan had created the most anodyne of tools for electoral manipulation: an app based on personality quizzes. Users signed up and answered a series of questions. Then the app would take those answers, mush them together with that person’s Facebook likes and declared interests, and spit out a profile that was supposed to know the test-taker better than he knew himself.

About 270,000 Americans participated. However what they didn’t know was that by agreeing to take the quiz and giving Facebook access to their data, they also granted access to many of their Facebook friends’ likes and interests as well. Users could turn off this setting, but it’s hard to turn off something you don’t know exists and that you couldn’t find if you did. Kogan quickly ended up with data on roughly 50 million people.

About five months after Kogan began his research, Facebook announced that it was tightening its app review policies. For one: Developers couldn’t mine data from your friends anymore. The barn door was shut, but Facebook told all the horses already in the pasture that they had another year to run around. Kogan, then, got a year and a half to do his business. And when the stricter policies went into effect, Facebook promptly rejected version two of his app.

By then Kogan had already mined the data and sold it to Cambridge Analytica, violating his agreement with Facebook and revealing one of the strange asymmetries of this story. Facebook knows everything about its users—but in some ways it knows nothing about its developers. And so Facebook didn’t start to suspect that Kogan had misused its data until it read a blaring headline in The Guardian in December 2015: “Ted Cruz using firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users.”

That story passed out of the cycle quickly though, swept away by news about the Iowa caucuses. And so while Facebook’s legal team might have been sweating at the end of 2015, outwardly Zuckerberg projected an air of total calm. His first public statement after the Guardian story broke was a Christmas note about all the books he’d read: “Reading has given me more perspective on a number of topics – from science to religion, from poverty to prosperity, from health to energy to social justice, from political philosophy to foreign policy, and from history to futuristic fiction.”

An Incomplete Response

When the 2015 Guardian story broke, Facebook immediately secured written assertions from Cambridge Analytica, Kogan, and Christopher Wylie that the data had been deleted. Lawyers on all sides started talking, and by the early summer of 2016 Facebook had more substantial legal agreements with Kogan and Wylie certifying that the data had been deleted. Cambridge Analytica signed similar documents, but their paperwork wasn’t submitted until 2017. Facebook’s lawyers describe it as a tortured and intense legal process. Wylie describes it as a pinkie promise. “All they asked me to do was tick a box on a form and post it back,” he told the Guardian.

Facebook’s stronger option would have been to insist on an audit of all of Cambridge Analytica’s machines. Did the data still exist, and had it been used at all? And in fact, according to the standard rules that developers agree to, Facebook reserves that right. “We can audit your app to ensure it is safe and does not violate our Terms. If requested, you must provide us with proof that your app complies with our terms,” the policy currently states, as it did then.

Kogan, too, may have merited closer scrutiny regardless, especially in the context of the 2016 presidential campaign. In addition to his University of Cambridge appointment, Kogan was also an associate professor at St. Petersburg State University, and had accepted research grants from the Russian government.

'All options are on the table.'

Paul Grewal, Facebook Deputy General Counsel

Why didn’t Facebook conduct an audit—a decision that may go down as Facebook’s most crucial mistake? Perhaps because no audit can ever be completely persuasive. Even if no trace of data exists on a server, it could still have been stuck on a hard-drive and shoved in a closet. Facebook’s legal team also insists that an audit would have been time-consuming and would have required a court order even though the developer contract allows for one. A third possible explanation is fear of accusations of political bias. Most of the senior employees at Facebook are Democrats who blanch at allegations that they would let politics seep into the platform.

Whatever the reason, Facebook trusted the signed documents from Cambridge Analytica. In June 2016, Facebook staff even went down to San Antonio to sit with Trump campaign officials and the Cambridge Analytica consultants by their side.

To Facebook, the story seemed to go away. In the year following Trump’s victory, public interest advocates hammered Cambridge Analytica over its data practices, and other publications, particularly The Intercept, dug into its practices. But Facebook, according to executives at the company, never thought to double check if the data was gone until reporters began to call this winter. And then it was only after the story broke that Facebook considered serious action including suing Cambridge Analytica. A lawyer for the company, Paul Grewal, told WIRED on Monday evening that “all options are on the table.”

What Comes Next

Of Facebook’s many problems, one of the most confusing appears to be figuring out what to do with Chancellor, who currently works with the VR team. He may know about the fate of the user data, but this weekend the company was debating how forcefully it could ask him since it could be considered a violation of rules protecting employees from being forced to give up trade secrets from previous jobs.

A harder question is when, and how exactly, Zuckerberg and Sandberg should emerge from their bunkers. Sandberg, in particular, has passed through the crucible of the past two years relatively unscathed. Zuckerberg’s name now trends on Twitter when crises hit, and this magazine put his bruised face on the cover. Even Stamos has taken heat during the outcry over the Russia investigation. And a small bevy of brave employees have waded out into the rushing rivers of Twitter, where they have generally been sucked below the surface or swept over waterfalls.

At its core, according to a former Facebook executive, the problem is really an existential one.

The last most vexing question is what to do to make Facebook data safer. For much of the past year, Facebook has been besieged by critics saying that it should make its data more open. It should let outsiders audit its data and peer around inside with a flashlight. But it was an excess of openness with developers—and opaque privacy practices—that got the company in trouble here. Facebook tightened up third-party access in 2015, meaning an exact replay of the Cambridge Analytica fiasco couldn’t happen today. But if the company decides to close down even further, then what happens to the researchers doing genuinely important work using the platform? How well can you vet intentions? A possible solution would be for Facebook to change its data retention policies. But doing so could undermine how the service fundamentally works, and make it far more difficult to catch malevolent actors—like Russian propaganda teams—after the fact.

User data is now the foundation of the internet. Every time you download an app, you give the developer access to bits of your personal information. Every time you engage with any technology company—Facebook, Google, Amazon, and so on—you help build their giant database of information. In exchange, you trust that they won’t do bad things with that data, because you want the services they offer.

Responding to a thread about how to fix the problem, Stamos tweeted, “I don’t think a digital utopia where everybody has privacy, anonymity and choice, but the bad guys are magically kept out, can exist.”

At its core, according to a former Facebook executive, the problem is really an existential one. The company is very good at dealing with things that happen frequently and have very low stakes. When mistakes happen, they move on. According to the executive, the philosophy of the company has long been “We’re trying to do good things. We’ll make mistakes. But people are good and the world is forgiving.”

If Facebook doesn’t find a satisfactory solution, it faces the unsavory prospect of heavy regulation. Already in the UK, the General Data Protection Regulation rule will give people much more insight and control over what data companies like Facebook take, and how it’s used. In the US, senators like Ron Wyden, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, and others may have the appetite for similar legislation, if Facebook’s privacy woes continue.

Facebook will hold its all-hands today, and hope for that inevitable moment when something horrible happens elsewhere and everyone’s attention turns. But it also knows that things might get worse, much worse. The nightmare scenario will come if the Cambridge Analytica story fully converges with the story of Russian meddling in American democracy: if it turns out that the Facebook data harvested by Cambridge Analytica ended up in the hands of Putin’s trolls.

At that point, Facebook will have to deal with yet another devastating asymmetry: data from a silly quiz app, created under obsolete rules, fueling a national security crisis. But those asymmetries are just part of the nature of Facebook today. The company has immense power, and it’s only begun to grapple with its immense responsibility. And the world isn’t as forgiving of Silicon Valley as it used to be.

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica

This story has been updated to include further details about Tuesday's company-wide meeting.

Read more: https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-cambridge-analytica-response/