Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

After a challenging year that almost forced it to close entirely, Reaching-Out Community Services reopened its food pantry at a new location in Bensonhurst last week.

Earlier this year, the organization — which has been providing food assistance and other programs to low-income Brooklynites for three decades — announced it was struggling. Demand for its services had skyrocketed, but so had operating costs and rent at the program’s old facility on New Utrecht Avenue, and financial support was dwindling. 

In August, RCS’ founder and executive director said on Instagram that the org had been forced to reduce its staff and “cut off” thousands of families who had been receiving help. He reached out to local elected officials for support, according to News12, but by mid-September, the org had vacated its old headquarters, and things were looking dire. Neve put out a call for donations online, saying RCS was looking for a new home, but would need funds to support the move, “since we have drained out our budget.”

That support came together just in time, and RCS unveiled its new facility on 18th Avenue on Nov. 13 – just in time for the holidays. 

“The 30-year-old program, once again, is continuing its mission, regardless of some challenges that we had to endure,” Neve told Brooklyn Paper. “The reason why we moved here is so we could help the community members. Thousands of people are going through hard times with food insecurity, and that’s the purpose of this mission, to help those who are suffering with food insecurity, and they need a helping hand.”

Neve thanked Council Member Susan Zhuang, Assembly Member William Colton, and U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, and local orgs including the Rotary Club of Verrazano and the Ben-Bay Kiwanis Club for their support.  

“RCS does such good work for people who are struggling to feed themselves and their families,” Zhuang said in a statement. “They are literally a lifeline for people in the community struggling with food insecurity. That is why I was proud to allocate funding for their vital food pantry program. Low-income residents deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter their financial circumstances.”

The organization’s “innovative” program eases the burden and stigma of going to a food pantry, Zhuang said. Per RCS’ website, its “Digital Client Choice Food Pantry System” is “one-of-a-kind.” 

Clients select their items, including fresh produce, on a bilingual touch screen computer — unlike at other pantries, where visitors might pick up pre-made bags of food. RCS workers receive the orders, find each item within the facility, and bring them to the client. 

On opening day, the new facility was fully stocked and had plenty of visitors. RCS mostly serves locals in South Brooklyn and asks prospective clients to provide proof of address and some explanation of their financial situation. 

Neve said he appreciated the support from the community and local orgs who came together to support RCS and southern Brooklynites in need of food assistance.

“It’s so needed, especially at this time, more than ever before,” he said. “Hopefully, we can see the good … we can keep that good going, and we’ll hopefully be successful in the mission we are trying to accomplish here.” 

More than a million people in New York City are struggling with food insecurity, according to CityHarvest, and one in four children don’t know where their next meal is coming from. Food pantry visits in the city up 80% compared to 2019, as families grapple with higher grocery prices and general cost of living increases. 

In Community District 11, which includes Bensonhurst, the median household income is around $60,000, according to the city’s Equitable Development Data Explorer. That’s considered “low-income” in New York City, and 25% of households in the district earn less than 30% of the Area Median Income — or $41,940 for a family of three — and are considered “very low-income.” 

With Thanksgiving on the horizon, RCS is preparing for its annual Thanksgiving giveaway, but it needs donations to make the event successful. 

“Hopefully, we can see the food that’s going to go, we can keep that good going, and we’ll hopefully be successful in the mission we are trying to accomplish here,” reads a post on RCS’ website. “We can continue to help as we did last year, but not without support from our caring friends. So please, let’s give thanks for what we have and just share a little back for those who are not so fortunate. Support and help feed a family or two for this Thanksgiving.”

Additional reporting by Arthur de Gaeta

As the COP29 climate summit enters the final stretch in Azerbaijan, there are growing frustrations over the apparent lack of progress toward securing a deal on climate finance – seen as a crucial step in reducing emissions and limiting global warming. Henry Ridgwell reports.

The Biden administration is making a final push during its last weeks in office to put Ukraine in the “strongest possible position” in preparation for negotiations. Their latest move, according to press reports and confirmed privately by administration sources (though not yet confirmed by U.S. announcements), is to authorize Ukraine to use its U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to hit targets inside Russia in defense of Ukrainian forces fighting in Russia’s Kursk Province. The United States previously limited the weapons to be used only against Russian forces and installations inside Ukraine, such as in Crimea. The Ukrainians now may have mounted strikes inside Russia today using ATACMS, amid angry complaints from Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

The shift is a good move and may lead the French and British to lift some comparable restrictions on their own long-range weapons. But it’s late in coming, like other Biden administration decisions to supply advanced weapons systems to Ukraine. And the Biden administration won’t be around long enough to manage any end game to the war. The incoming Trump administration is apparently pushing fast-track negotiations to end this phase of the conflict on terms that risk favoring Russian President Vladimir Putin. All the outgoing Biden team can do at this point is push weapons out the door and ramp up economic pressure on Russia (they do have good options for the latter) and hope for the best.

The Biden administration did a lot to support Ukraine’s defense, rallying European and other nations to do the same. I don’t share the cynical view that the Biden team was stingy with assistance to stymie Ukrainian victory. But the administration’s decisions were often slow, made at a deliberate pace not always commensurate with need. Mixed messages about lifting ATACMS restrictions created the impression of hesitation, even dithering. Similar cycles of hesitation and long deliberation accompanied earlier decisions about sending Ukraine F-16s, certain armored vehicles, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) missiles, and other weapons systems.

According to administration sources, the reason the restriction on use of ATACMS was finally lifted was the appearance of North Korean forces in Russia, apparently making preparations to join Russian troops against Ukraine in Russia’s Kursk region; that gave administration proponents of lifting the restrictions an argument that it was Putin who had escalated the conflict by bringing in those forces and that lifting the ATACMS restrictions was only a response.

Failure to Press Advantages

An internal administration dynamic that lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of weapons required some rationale other than helping Ukraine defend itself speaks to a lack of determination to push potential advantages and an overthinking about “escalation.” Administration officials make the case that no one weapons system would change the course of the war. That may be true, but the cumulative impact of many slow decisions about weapons systems might have had impact at the margins, and it is at the margins that some wars are decided. Indeed, Putin sought to escalate at least rhetorically again today by announcing the formal signing of a revised nuclear doctrine that already had been announced in September.

President-elect Donald Trump’s team is setting the stage for rapid moves on Ukraine, apparently planning a big push to end the conflict. That may include a ceasefire along current lines, and some sort of security support for Ukraine. That is not necessarily a radical approach. The Biden team had privately acknowledged that Ukraine might not regain all its territory for some time and that, in the interim, a ceasefire might be needed, supported by serious security guarantees. The Biden version of security guarantees for Ukraine has started out with a set of parallel, bilateral memoranda of understandings between Ukraine and NATO and other nations, including the United States. However, again privately, some in the Biden administration acknowledged that this was inadequate and, with reluctance, recognized that Ukrainian membership in NATO, with only “free” or “unoccupied” Ukraine covered by the alliance, could be the most viable way to end the war. Senior European officials at NATO privately say that they have come to that conclusion as well.

The Risk of a Phased Conquest

But rather than striving for Ukraine’s NATO membership, which is currently the stated NATO-accepted goal, the Trump plan seems to involve some sort of forced neutrality for Ukraine or a moratorium (perhaps for 20 years) on any moves toward Ukraine’s NATO membership. This reported sketch of a Trump plan raises one fatal problem up front: without serious security support for Ukraine, this could set the stage for a phased Russian conquest of the entire country — first, Western acquiescence to Russian conquests up to the ceasefire line, and second, a signal that there would not be much response to another, subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine, probably after an interval for Russia to refit its forces. For decades, analysts have used (and sometimes misapplied) the lesson of the 1938 Peace Conference in Munich in which the British and French acquiesced to German occupation of a portion of Czechoslovakia in exchange for Hitler’s promises of subsequent peace. Within months of that ill-conceived concession, Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia and Hitler started planning the invasion of Poland, assuming that Britain and France would never stand up to him.

A Trump “peace plan” that essentially abandons Ukraine would mirror the bad deal at Munich, which has served for generations as an example of Western fecklessness in the face of a dictator’s will. Like the Munich deal, it could encourage Putin or other aggressive leaders to launch new wars, perhaps in Asia against Taiwan.

Some in Trump World appear to be well aware of the dangers of a bad deal on Ukraine. They privately acknowledge that the Trump administration might own the terrible images of Ukraine falling to a subsequent Russian attack made possible by a bad deal, a sort of giant version of the images of Kabul falling to the Taliban in 2021 with millions of refugees, a new wave of atrocities, and indications of U.S. weakness.

During the presidential campaign, Senator J.D. Vance, now Trump’s vice president-elect, offered a plan that would include freezing the conflict on the current ceasefire line but also heavily fortifying that line to prevent further Russian aggression. Vance did not specify what that meant, but his formula opens the door to continued U.S. military assistance to Ukraine and, potentially, foreign forces on Ukrainian soil to back up a ceasefire. The possibility of European and other countries’ forces on the ground in Ukraine to support a ceasefire is a longshot but not fanciful: at the Berlin Koerber Conference on Nov. 12, where I was present, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock raised such a possibility. Potential contributor nations would likely demand, understandably, contingency U.S. air, intelligence, and logistic support.

In short, a Trump administration push for a rapid settlement in Ukraine need not be worst case if — but only if — it includes serious security provisions for Ukraine. NATO membership would provide the best security for Ukraine and for Europe, and any gap between NATO’s security provisions and what Ukraine gets would be temptation for Putin to exploit. But a Trump plan for Ukraine that includes something stronger than the Biden administration’s bundle of bilateral MOUs could hold some promise.

Putin, however, gets a vote. So far, Kremlin-tied Russians have treated early signals of the Trump plan for Ukraine with scorn, demanding Ukraine’s surrender. Should the Kremlin maintain a maximalist line, the Trump team will have to decide whether to cave to it or push back, the latter possibly by increasing support for Ukraine and pressure on Russia.

After many months of stasis, events in Ukraine could move quickly. The Biden team will do what it can as it prepares to leave; the Trump team will have challenges putting its ambitions to end the war to the test. All the while, the stakes will be high.

IMAGE: Pro-Ukrainian activists demonstrate in front of the White House in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2024. US President Joe Biden has cleared Kyiv to use long-range American missiles against military targets inside Russia, a US official told AFP on Sunday, hours after Russia targeted Ukraine’s power grid in a deadly barrage. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has long pushed for authorization from Washington to use the powerful Army Tactical Missile System, known by its initials ATACMS, to hit targets inside Russia. (Photo by DANIEL SLIM/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Biden’s Final Efforts on Ukraine — and Trump’s First Moves appeared first on Just Security.

Aslan Bzhania, Moscow’s ruler of occupied Georgian territory, made the resignation conditional on protestors agreeing to cease their four-day occupation of government buildings in Sokhumi by Tuesday.

Trump has recently nominated several people to fill foreign policy roles in his upcoming administration. From congressmen to billionaires – can you identify who Trump wants in his next FP team?

Europe’s press looks back in horror at the developments so far and outlines future scenarios.

Lloyd Austin’s comments came amid intense speculation over how the incoming Trump administration would steer US military engagements in Asia

A new program is supporting the mental health needs of the families and children of New York’s Bravest.

Red Hook-based organization Friends of Firefighters, which advocates for the health and wellness of firefighters, is reaching a new demographic through its “Bravest Children” program, led by counselors Zach Grill and Kia Carbone. 

The pair work with children from ages 4 to 17, helping them navigate through the stresses of their parents’ dangerous job and of every day life.

‘It’s creating a community for the kids [of] these firefighters [scattered] all across the city,” Grill said. “The kids don’t necessarily meet up with other children of firefighters. So having a sense of community that they can see that the different lifestyle that they live by being a child of firefighter does have normalcy.” 

So far, twelve families participate in the group, meeting regularly to learn about effective communication, coping skills, and resilience, all while having some fun. 

Grill and Carbone said they want to help the children deal with their struggles, and talk freely about whatever is on their mind. They do that a little differently than they might with adults — Grill connects with the kids through tabletop games like UNO and role-playing games, and Carbone through painting and drawing. There’s also Sadie, aka Boox — a service dog in training, who will someday work with the kids. 

“I want them to be able to understand why they are feeling stressed or these emotions.” Grill said.

Carbone said she takes pride in helping the younger generation, who often weren’t taught how to communicate their emotions and struggles. 

“I mean, it was like, ‘Oh yeah, learn how to talk about it,’” she said. “But then, like, not told how to. And when you don’t know how to communicate, you bury things or you lash out, it’s one or the other, and it’s not conducive to anything.” 

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Carbone said, programs for children have filled up, and there are waitlists for after-school programs and programs like Bravest Children. But those kids need a place to learn and get support. 

Bravest Children helps children and families put things in perspective, she said.  An eight-year-old in the group recently told Carbone they felt that “life feels like it is moving too fast.” 

Being able to “figure out what’s going on, communicate that even if you’re communicating it to yourself, that’s something that a lot of us really struggle to do,” she said. “So I think that’s probably the most important thing.”

Every online activity or task brings at least some level of cybersecurity risk, but some have more risk than others. Kiteworks Sensitive Content Communications Report found that this is especially true when it comes to using communication tools.

When it comes to cybersecurity, communicating means more than just talking to another person; it includes any activity where you are transferring data from one point online to another. Companies use a wide range of different types of tools to communicate, including email, file sharing, managed transfer and secure file transfer. But there are many other communication tools, including SMS text, video conferencing and even web forms. Kiteworks’ research found that more is not necessarily better when it comes to security and communications tools.

The survey found that companies with more than seven different communication tools were at a significantly higher risk of data breach — 3.55x higher than the average. Only 9% of organizations overall reported more than 10 data breaches, but 32% of companies with more than seven communications tools experienced this high number of breaches. More communication tools also translate into higher data breach litigation costs, with organizations with more than seven tools reporting paying 3.25 times more in data breach litigation costs.

Impacts of a data breach

Companies with a high number of data breaches typically see numerous negative impacts on their organization, including lost customers, reputation damage and operational downtime. Many organizations also must hire additional staff after the breach, such as customer service help desks and credit monitoring services. Companies in regulated industries may also face fines related to the breach.

The 2024 Cost of a Data Breach Report found that the average cost of a data breach jumped to $4.88 million from $4.45 million in 2023, a 10% spike and the highest increase since the pandemic. While the study showed key improvements related to breaches, especially in terms of identifying and containing breaches more quickly, the increased cost of a breach is due to rising business costs.

Read the Cost of a Data Breach Report

Why an increase in communication tools increases risk

With communication and data transfer now central to all industries and most processes, both internal and external, reducing risk starts with understanding why each new tool increases the odds of a breach.

Here are key reasons for the correlation between the number of tools and the risk of a data breach:

Increased attack area

Each time a new tool is added to a process, the organization adds a new entry point for an attack every time a user accesses that tool. For example, the marketing department has begun using a different video conferencing tool than the rest of the company. Threat actors can now target users of the tool and recordings of the meetings stored in the cloud. Additionally, the information sent through the tool, such as chat comments and files shared, adds more opportunities for a data breach.

More opportunities for exchanging sensitive data

Kiteworks found that tracking sensitive data creates a big issue, with two-thirds of respondents sending sensitive data to more than 1,000 different third parties. Additionally, employees often let their guard down when using casual communication tools such as messenger and email, which creates instances of sharing sensitive data and increasing data breach risks.

More resources are required to govern and monitor

Because communication tools provide many opportunities for cybersecurity risks, the use of each tool must be carefully monitored with documented processes. This requires more resources, especially in terms of monitoring use for cybersecurity issues or improper use. With more tools to monitor, it’s easier to accidentally overlook a warning signal of a breach.

Increased risk of human error

Communication tools provide many different ways for employees to make mistakes that lead to a breach, such as falling for a social engineering scheme or using an insecure connection to send data. Employees are also more likely to make more compliance errors with more tools since the process may vary per tool, making it easier to overlook a step.

Reducing risk from communication tools

Reducing breaches often feels like an overwhelming task. By starting with communication tools, organizations can take proactive steps toward reducing their risk.

Take stock of tools in use

Many companies have no idea exactly how many tools they are using. By working with all employees and departments, organizations should create a catalog of all tools currently in use.

Eliminate multiple tools used for the same purpose

If your business finds that four different project management tools are used throughout the organization, you need to determine which tool is the best fit for the organization. By helping teams transition to the approved tools, you can reduce your risk of a breach.

Provide employees with the tools that they need

Many employees begin using approved tools because the tools that the company issues do not work for their tasks. For example, many companies instruct employees to use file-sharing tools that have file size limits. If an employee must transfer a file that is too big for that tool, then the only way that they can do their job is by using another approved tool. Many organizations find that their high number of tools used is due to employees improvising to get things done. By ensuring that your employees have tools that accomplish their required tasks, you can often quickly reduce the number of tools used in your organization.

Use tools that perform multiple tasks

The number of communication tools often quickly grows when an organization has a separate tool for each different type of communication task. By using platforms that perform multiple functions, such as file sharing, video conferencing and messaging, organizations can significantly decrease the number of communication tools.

It’s very easy to look up and realize that your company is using many different tools. By making a concerted effort to understand the tools needed and provide the right tools, your organization can reduce your risk of a breach.

The post Communication platforms play a major role in data breach risks appeared first on Security Intelligence.