• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: Fracking boom triggers water battle in North Dakota
  • Recommended: Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure
  • Recommended: AP, DOJ clash over seriousness of leak that prompted phone records seizure
  • Recommended: IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges

Investigative reporting from NBC News, with your story ideas and documents. Share your ideas. Read about this blog. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 14
    Feb
    2012
    3:06am, EST

    Was study of digital billboard safety botched?

    A study of electronic billboards and traffic safety commissionedtThe Federal Highway Administration was supposed to have been completed in 2009, but it remains cloaked in mystery.

    By Myron Levin
    FairWarning

    Billboard companies are moving aggressively to plant digital signs along U.S. highways and city streets. But debate persists on whether the eye-grabbing displays, which typically change messages every 6 to 8 seconds, pose a risk to traffic safety.

    Combatants in the billboard wars -- including local and state officials under industry pressure to permit more of the lucrative signs -- are eager for a study by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). They have hoped that the much-anticipated study, launched in 2007, would help clarify some key safety questions.

    Yet the politically sensitive research, which was supposed to have been wrapped up in 2009, remains cloaked in mystery. All the FHWA has said, time after time, is that the study is under review.

    It turns out that officials may be afraid to make an embarrassing admission.

    According to records obtained by FairWarning under the Freedom of Information Act, expert reviewers have told the FHWA that the study appears to have been botched. The key findings vary so wildly from previous research that, as one reviewer put it, they “are not plausible.”


    The agency has refused to answer questions. “We have no one available to be interviewed,” said spokesman Doug Hecox, adding that “internal discussions about the draft of the study are ongoing.” He would not say if FHWA plans to toss the research or try to salvage it.

    The hundreds of pages of agency emails and other records reviewed by FairWarning, however, speak loudly about the political and financial stakes, as well as industry efforts to influence public opinion.

    The unreleased draft, which drew withering critiques from two experts, gave the billboard industry what it wanted, the documents show. Those results indicated that drivers’ glances at billboards were exceedingly brief, suggesting that the displays aren’t a threat to traffic safety. 

    Yet the billboard industry, led by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, was deeply worried. The trade group campaigned to remove a study consultant that the industry accused of having an anti-billboard bias and brought out its own studies to frame public debate while the FHWA was still studying the issue.

    Digital signs proliferate
    Today, of more than 400,000 billboards in the U.S., estimates of digital displays range from slightly more than 2,000 to as many as 3,200. The industry has been adding hundreds of the more-profitable signs each year.

    The FHWA study followed a controversial memo by the agency in September 2007 that appeared to green light the digital expansion. The memo stated that electronic displays were not prohibited under longstanding federal-state agreements that ban “intermittent’’ or ‘’flashing’’ signs. 

    Anti-billboard groups, including Scenic America, denounced the memo as farcical, saying billboards that alternate content every few seconds are the exact definition of “intermittent’’ signs. Responding to attacks, the FHWA said that it was only clarifying existing policy. 

    Stung by backlash from the memo, the FHWA launched its study. It relied on sophisticated instruments to monitor how long drivers on fixed routes in Reading, Pa., and Richmond, Va., glanced at digital billboards.

    “Lots of interest from all sides,” said an email from senior agency official, referring to the research. “There is huge money involved here, so the interests are getting pretty strident.” 

    A consulting firm, Science Applications International Corp., was hired to run the study. It brought on Jerry Wachtel, a Berkeley-based traffic safety expert, as an adviser. Science Applications declined comment.  

    The industry at the time was smarting from a report by Wachtel for Maryland transportation officials. They had asked him to review two industry-sponsored studies that the industry said confirmed the safety of digital billboards. Wachtel’s report said both studies were biased and misleading. 

    Scenic America

    A Clear Channel digital billboard advertises itself through electrical wires in Sarasota, Fla.

    In a seemingly orchestrated campaign, several industry groups and members of Congress fired off letters attacking Wachtel and seeking his removal from the FHWA study. In its letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the outdoor advertising association blasted what it called Wachtel’s “high-profile activism.” 

    Five House members from Pennsylvania — Democrats Jason Altmire, Christopher Carney and Tim Holden, and Republicans Charles W. Dent and Todd Russell Platts — signed a letter to FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez complaining of biased remarks by Wachtel at a hearing on billboards in their state. His involvement, they wrote, “may undermine the credibility of ongoing federal research.”

    Billboard industry's political donations
    All five lawmakers have received campaign support from billboard executives or political action committees since 2006, according to research by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. The donations totaled at least $26,484. 

    Altmire spokesman Richard Carbo said in an email that the congressmen “were concerned that the reports from the Federal Highway Administration were not unbiased.  That was the only purpose of the letter.”

    In fact, Wachtel’s role was limited and his involvement basically had ended by the time of the protests.  However, FHWA officials wanted to avoid any appearance of caving in. “I think we have to be very careful in dealing with this issue,” one official said in an email.  “We do not want industry dictating whom we may or may not employ on our projects.” 

    Responding to the outdoor advertising association, FHWA Associate Administrator Gloria Shepherd wrote: “We are well aware of the sensitive nature of this research. … I can assure you that we will be monitoring’’ the work “to be sure it is accomplished in an objective manner.” 

    Wachtel, who has worked for billboard companies in the past, told FairWarning that “in their eyes, I have been both the world’s smartest guy and the world’s worst individual. I’m the smartest guy when I tell them what they want to hear.” 

    In response to questions from FairWarning, the association said in an email that “OAAA and the outdoor industry support fair research. In fact, we’ve researched traffic safety for years. …The results have not indicated a correlation between digital billboards and traffic accidents.” 

    Records show that FHWA officials rebuffed a Freedom of Information request from an industry lawyer to disclose the research locations, saying they would be kept secret “until the tests are completed to protect the integrity of the results.” 

    But the industry found out, anyway. It launched its own studies in Reading and Richmond and blared the results. “Digital Billboards Not Linked to Accidents,” a press release said. 

    Records show the FHWA study was submitted in September 2010, and circulated for internal review in the fall. “The final report is scheduled to be released to the public in December 2010,” an agency memo said. 

    However, the review continued into 2011, when the two outside experts criticized it. Identified only as “REVIEWER 1” and “REVIEWER 2,” they concluded that the data appeared to be wrong. 

    Distracted driving research has sought to find the amount of time when drivers looking away from the road raises the risk of a crash. In the scientific literature, glance times associated with a higher crash risk have been variously estimated at 2 seconds, 1.6 seconds or three-quarters of a second. 

    Almost impossible
    In the FHWA study, recorded glances were so brief that none came close to 2 seconds or even 1.6 seconds. Only about 1 percent were above three-quarters of a second.

    In fact, the average was slightly below one-tenth of a second -- a number both expert reviewers considered almost impossible.

    “The reported glances to billboards here are on the order of 10-times shorter than values reported elsewhere,” one reviewer wrote. “The pattern of results certainly raises questions over the quality and legitimacy of the underlying data.’’

    The other said, “The data reported as average glance durations are not plausible.”

    Two other experts contacted by FairWarning confirmed that the data was highly suspect.

    Alison Smiley, president of Human Factors North, Inc., in Toronto, said the glance times were “extremely short’’ and substantially at odds with her own studies.

    Paul A. Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Institute, said glances so brief would mean the drivers “never really looked’’ at the billboards.

    “It’s a flaw in the data,” Green said. “You wonder, if they made this mistake did they make other mistakes?” 

    FairWarning is a nonprofit, online investigative news organization focused on public health and safety issues.

    Submit ideas Share your story ideas with Open Channel

    Send documents Send us a document

    Facebook Follow Open Channel on Facebook

    Twitter Follow Open Channel on Twitter

    E-mail alerts Sign up for e-mail alerts

    125 comments

    Personally, I despise digital signs of the neon kind that are on the 405FWY in LA and in Vegas. They are blinding at night especially and distracting and a traffic hazard. In Vegas, it behooves you to were sunglasses driving at night; those billboards are so blinding.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: digital, study, safety, driver, electronic, billboards, featured, regulations, distraction
  • 1
    Sep
    2011
    6:49am, EDT

    U.S. aims to track 'untraceable' prepaid cash cards

    Msnbc.com's Alex Johnson explains why pre-paid cash cards make tracing terrorists' money trails extremely difficult and how it could have hindered 9/11 investigations.

    By M. Alex Johnson
    NBC News

    As the federal government tells it, the money men behind the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers would never have been identified had they not been lousy bankers:

    "The 9/11 hijackers opened U.S. bank accounts, had face-to-face dealings with bank employees, signed signature cards and received wire transfers, all of which left financial footprints. Law enforcement was able to follow the trail, identify the hijackers and trace them back to their terror cells and confederates abroad."

    That's from a Treasury Department assessment of financial security threats in 2005. It went on to warn that the terrorists could have quietly moved large sums of money into or out of the U.S.:

    "Had the 9/11 terrorists used prepaid ... cards to cover their expenses, none of these financial footprints would have been available."

    REPORT AN ERROR
    Report an error

    Six years after Treasury identified that vulnerability, concern that drug smugglers and terrorists are exploiting it is driving the federal government to change the rules for issuing and using prepaid cards, particularly high-value reloadable cards like the cash cards you might take with you on vacation.

    By making it harder to get prepaid cards without subjecting buyers to government scrutiny, regulators and lawmakers hope to make it easier to detect patterns of money movement that could signal something nefarious. But card issuers and some business experts warn that the expense and paperwork involved in the new restrictions, which require issuers to keep records on who bought how much for five years, could drive smaller card operations out of the market.

    A problem that's hard to quantify
    When the government refers to "prepaid debit cards," it's not talking about the standard bank debit card you probably have in your purse or wallet. Because such cards are attached to bank accounts, they're already closely monitored my numerous federal agencies. If you gave a bank debit card to someone to do something bad with, it and you would be easily traceable.

    One of the new rules, in fact, is to rename prepaid debit cards, which also used to be known as "stored-value cards," to avoid confusion.

    They're now called "prepaid access cards" because they're not tied to a bank account. They're just pointers to a sum of money you've already paid up (or been given) in advance. The money itself can be anywhere, including accounts outside the reach of government monitoring.

    "The distinction actually makes good sense," said James Angel, a business professor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. 

    "You don't have that much risk of terrorism through a (bank) debit card," he said in an interview. "There's a problem with a prepaid card because it can begin with cash  — the trail is broken, and you can't track where the money came from."

    Prepaid cards, and their fees, go mainstream

    Jim Schlegel, a senior product manager at ACI Worldwide of New York, which creates and manages electronic payment systems for banks and major retailers, said the new rules are well-intentioned, but he questioned just how big a problem money laundering through prepaid cards really is.

    It's "such a small percentage of the overall problem, and attempts to propose very heavy legislation and requirements around it put a drag on an otherwise growing and profitable sector," he said in an interview.

    Law enforcement agencies and banking regulators acknowledge that there's no way to know how much money is being moved undetected across U.S. borders through the cards — that's the point of money laundering, after all.

    But in a report late last year on money laundering and cross-border currency smuggling, the Government Accountability Office cited the Treasury Department's 2005 assessment to urge action to crack down on misuse of prepaid access cards, saying it was convinced that the shuttling of criminal proceeds across the border, "whether in the form of bulk cash or stored value" (on prepaid cards), poses "a significant threat to national security." 

    In an examination of the threat last year, the Financial Action Task Force, an international agency established by the G-7 in 1989, said such an operation typically works like this:

    A criminal organization repeatedly loads a prepaid card in increments just below the amount that would trigger a report to the government. (In the U.S., that threshold is $10,000, so if it were based here, the organization might regularly reload a card with $9,900.)

    The card, or a second card linked to the same account, is sent to an associate, perhaps in another country, who withdraws the funds through ATMs. In one such operation based in Australia, more than $100,000 was laundered this way, the FATF reported.

    That's how the Black Guerrilla Family, a Baltimore street gang, worked, according to a federal racketeering indictment, to which three gang leaders and accomplices pleaded guilty in April. 

    For more than a decade, gang members locked up in Maryland's prisons blackmailed fellow inmates and sold narcotics and other contraband, the FBI said. They then "laundered the proceeds of their illicit activities through the use of pre-paid debit cards" sold by Green Dot, the nation's largest seller of the cards in retail stores.

    The U.S. would seem to be especially vulnerable, because it's the world's biggest user of prepaid cards; the FATF report projected that by 2017, the U.S. will account for 53 percent of the worldwide market.

    Steve Streit, chief executive of prepaid access card firm Green Dot, told CNBC last year how the cards work.

    Follow the money to find the bad guys
    How is this specific roadblock to tracking transactions a threat to security, especially when authorities can't quantify it as a significant percentage of all money laundering?

    In congressional testimony last year, FBI Director Robert Mueller called the use of prepaid cards a "shadow banking system" that had "impacted our ability to gather real-time financial intelligence."

    The new rules not only are supposed to make it easier for the FBI and other agencies to track prepaid cards back to the original purchasers; they also require issuers to alert the government to any large or otherwise suspicious transactions, like those multiple $9,900 purchases. That can all add up to a pattern of evidence that could tip off investigators to larger plans that are in the works.

    The rules take effect Sept. 27. They fill 69 pages as drawn up by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a branch of the Treasury Department known as FinCEN, illustrating just how complicated the industry that manages prepaid cards really is.

    There are two main types of prepaid cards. One is called "closed system"; these are usually gift cards, student meal cards or transit and phone cards. They may or may not be reloadable depending on the program, but they're usually usable only with specific merchants, so their value in moving large sums of money is limited.

    Of more concern are "open-system" cards, like those issued for some electronic payroll systems and travel programs and usable at thousands of businesses across the U.S. (If they're "branded" cards — that is, if they come with the Visa or MasterCard logo — they can be used to withdraw money directly through ATMs.)

    Such cards make "the challenge of smuggling heavy stacks of cash nearly obsolete," Kumar C. Kibble, the deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told Congress in March.

    Jasbir Anand, a senior consultant at ACI, said the funds represented on such cards, which you can easily buy online, could "travel across borders without limitation." 

    "You could have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars associated with that card," Anand said in an interview, calling that "obviously a glaring exception" to current anti-money-laundering laws.

    ‘They've got to find somebody' to regulate
    The new rules, in effect, shift the focus of regulation from where and how a card is used to where and how it is sold, Schlegel said.

    "How do you investigate the funds related to a particular product ... when that card is merely an access point to a larger system?" he asked in an interview.

    To put it another way, Anand said, the card itself is just a worthless piece of plastic. It's a token representing money that's being held somewhere else, very much like your checkbook.

    In the same way that a husband can give his wife his checkbook, "I can give you the card, and that's not a financial transaction," Anand said. And "since that cannot be governed and controlled," the new rules target transactions the government can plausibly regulate — the actual initial loading of value onto the card.

    "They've got to find somebody" to monitor, said Angel, of Georgetown University.

    The rules include numerous exemptions to make issuing lower-value cards easier for those merchants, by excluding closed-loop cards — that is, gift cards and the like that can be used only at particular stores or service providers — of less than $2,000. They also exempt government-issued cards and many prepaid health care cards. The Treasury doesn't consider any of those to be a significant money-laundering threat.

    But most open-loop cards, which can be used pretty much anywhere, fall under the regulations, and the onus to do all the paperwork falls on whoever "exercises principal oversight and control" of the card program. The rules don't clearly define what businesses are in that category.

    That's not an issue for banks, which are heavily regulated and have processes in place because they already monitor billions of credit and regular debit cards. But many other previously unregulated or lightly regulated businesses issue or administer prepaid card programs: online shopping services, corporate rewards card programs, third-party payment processors — even celebrities, like the Kardashian sisters, who withdrew their Kardashian Kard from the market last year after customers complained about its high fees.

    ConsumerMan: Prepaid cards will have you paying, all right

    "The net impact of these rules would be an increase in the overall cost of debit cards for consumers for record-keeping and storage and so on that will eventually trickle down to fees on the debit card and a limitation on features," Anand said.

    That also could choke adoption of future technologies developed on the science inside the stripes on your plastic cards, he said. An example would be cashless "mobile wallets" that live in your phone and work through near-field communication wireless systems.

    "It's unfortunate that we're at the cusp of taking advantage of this huge channel and trend and something like this could really stifle growth," he said.

    Even as it warns about the potential money laundering threat, the Financial Action Task Force also acknowledges that tight restrictions on prepaid cards could have a significant impact on lower-income people unable to "take full advantage of mainstream financial service providers" because they have a poor credit record, for example, or because they have no permanent address and can't qualify for a bank account. That's more than 17 million Americans, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. says, and for them, prepaid  cards can be the only way they can gain "ready access to services," the FATF said.

    "It is important to recognize that public officials can sometimes take steps designed to 'protect' those who are disadvantaged when those steps may actually become barriers that actually restrict access to financial services," the task force said in a follow-up report in June. "For example, steps that add to the costs for prepaid products may make them less appealing to those living on the margin."

    Customs is no barrier
    There's another issue: The rules apply to transactions that take place in the U.S. Reputable overseas banks and other companies that want to continue doing business here will likely comply, but the U.S. can't impose its wishes on hundreds of thousands of merchants in other countries.

    "I can walk into a country with a prepaid card that has a thousand dollars on it and add more to it," Anand said, which means that even under the new rules, a smuggler or a terrorist can easily obliterate investigators' money trail back to the source.

    "Suppose I were a terrorist and I needed some money to buy some bomb-making materials locally, but my source of funding is over in Berzerkistan," Angel said. "They can have one of their operatives take a pile of cash, buy a prepaid card and get that into my possession without it being traceable back to anybody else in my terrorist cell."

    And how would that operative get the card into Angel's possession? He or she would simply fly into the country with it. Prepaid access cards aren't treated like cash, which travelers are required to declare if they're carrying $10,000 or more.

    "The debit card that looks, smells and tastes like (cash) — that doesn't count," Angel said.

    Three senators — Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. — introduced legislation last month to close that loophole. It would require travelers to declare "prepaid cards totaling more than $10,000" when they enter or leave the U.S., just like cash.

    That may sound like a common-sense approach, but card issuers and others have objections. The losers, they contend, won't be drug smugglers and terrorists — who likely wouldn't comply — but travelers and other innocent customers.

    The rules could make prepaid cards less attractive to travelers, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to credit cards and other standard bank cards, which wouldn't be covered, said Kirsten Trusko, executive director of the Network Branded Prepaid Card Association.

    The NBPCA, a trade group for companies that issue of prepaid cards carrying the logos of networks like MasterCard or Visa, has weighed in against similar attempts to require customs reporting of cards, calling them "unwise and impractical."

    That's because you have to know the value of your prepaid card to declare it, Trusko said. And trying to determine a card's balance "while in flight or upon debarkation from a plane is burdensome and unnecessary," she said in a statement to msnbc.com.

    Angel said the problem is more basic.

    "I would think someone with a card with $10,000 or more on it would probably be watching it carefully and know they're over the limit," he said. But he warned that "the devil is always in the details," asking, "How are they going to catch somebody who violates?"

    "If you're wearing a money belt with hundred-dollar bills in it, that's going to be kind of obvious," he said. "But if somebody's carrying a MasterCard, how are they going to know? It could get fairly invasive when they start searching people at the border."

    REPORT AN ERROR
    Report an error

    368 comments

    Anybody who supports this should lose their citizenship. Enough already, stop spending my money to look at prepaid credit cards on the off chance that "something nefarious" might be going on.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: terrorism, customs, money-laundering, treasury-department, featured, government-accountability-office, regulations, fincen, jeanne-shaheen, amy-klobuchar, tom-udall, prepaid-access-cards

Browse

  • featured,
  • documents,
  • terrorism,
  • al-qaida,
  • election-2012,
  • investigative-reporting,
  • iran,
  • crime,
  • reading,
  • investigation,
  • military,
  • health,
  • environment,
  • obama,
  • fbi,
  • campaign-finance,
  • pakistan,
  • u-s,
  • huguette-clark,
  • campaign,
  • updated,
  • cia,
  • guns,
  • news21,
  • voting-fraud,
  • voter-id,
  • who-can-vote,
  • nbc,
  • isikoff,
  • nuclear,
  • penn-state,
  • windrem,
  • security,
  • center-for-public-integrity,
  • osama-bin-laden,
  • politics,
  • romney,
  • wikileaks,
  • shooting,
  • fracking,
  • oil,
  • safety
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Bill Dedman

Investigative reporter Bill Dedman of NBC News is always looking for good investigative story ideas and documents. Bill received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, and has written full time for NBCNews.com since 2006.

Bill Dedman Blogroll

  • Bill's investigative reporting feed on Twitter
  • ABC News The Blotter
  • Center for Investigative Reporting
  • Center for Public Integrity
  • Center for Public Integrity's Paper Trail blog
  • Huffington Post Investigative Fund
  • Investigative Reporters and Editors' Extra! Extra!
  • McClatchey blog Nukes & Spooks
  • New York Times' City Room Records blog
  • New York Times' Open data blog
  • ProPublica
  • ProPublica blog
  • Yahoo! News The Upshot
  • TPM Muckraker
  • Washington Post Investigations
  • WhoWhatWhy forensic journalism
  • New England Center for Investigative Center at Bos
  • Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
  • Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting
  • Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, B
  • MinnPost.com
  • The Washington Independent
  • AU Investivative Reporting Workshop
  • Become a fan on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
Have an idea?
Send your ideas and documents for investigative stories.

Michael Isikoff

Michael Isikoff joined NBC News in July 2010 as national investigative correspondent. He had been at Newsweek since 1994 as an investigative correspondent. He has written extensively on the U.S. government's war on terrorism, the Abu Ghraib scandal, campaign-finance and congressional ethics abuses, presidential politics and other national issues.

Amna Nawaz

Amna Nawaz is Bureau Chief/Correspondent for NBC News' Pakistan bureau. She reports for all NBC News platforms from across the country and the region. Previously, she reported for the network's investigative unit.

Mike Brunker, Investigations Editor, NBC News

Mike Brunker is the investigations editor at NBCNews.com. He's worked for the site (formerly msnbc.com) as a reporter and editor since August 1996. Before that, he was an editor at the San Francisco Examiner and Hayward Daily Review in California.

Mike Brunker, Investigations Editor, NBC News Blogroll

  • White Collar Crime Prof blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy: Legal news now
  • Frederick Lane Blog -- legal news
  • Social Networking Law Blog
  • Sports Law Blog
  • Business of Horse Racing Blog
  • The Long War Journal
  • The Red Tape Chronicles -- consumer/tech news

Azriel James Relph

Azriel James Relph is a researcher for NBC News Investigations. He is a graduate of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, and was a reporter for several years at the Hunts Point Express -- a South Bronx newspaper serving the poorest Congressional District in the United Sates. He has written for Newsweek, The Daily Beast, and MSNBC.com.

Robert Windrem

Robert Windrem is investigative producer for special projects at NBC Nightly News. He is also a Fellow at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. He has worked at NBC News for more than three decades, focusing on issues of international security, strategic policy, intelligence and terrorism.

M. Alex Johnson

M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for NBC News specializing in national affairs, technology and data analysis. He joined NBC News in 1999 from The Washington Post.

M. Alex Johnson Blogroll

  • Alex Johnson — Journalist at Large
  • Ars Technica
  • Krebs on Security
  • GetStats
  • Technolog
  • Sophos Security Trends
  • Muckety
  • Pew Internet Research
  • Investigative Reporters and Editors
  • Fund for Investigative Journalism
  • Data Journalism Blog
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on Facebook
Follow Alex
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Archives

  • 2013
    • May (34)
    • April (34)
    • March (42)
    • February (21)
    • January (27)
  • 2012
    • December (33)
    • November (30)
    • October (39)
    • September (34)
    • August (46)
    • July (36)
    • June (42)
    • May (52)
    • April (28)
    • March (24)
    • February (38)
    • January (42)
  • 2011
    • December (27)
    • November (23)
    • October (15)
    • September (9)
    • August (6)
    • July (11)
    • June (12)
    • May (12)
    • April (5)
    • March (11)
    • February (11)
    • January (21)
  • 2010
    • December (11)
    • November (13)

Most Commented

  • Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups (776)
  • Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled note inside boat where he was hiding, sources say (721)
  • IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges (913)
  • As applications swell, IRS nonprofit division overloaded, understaffed (381)
  • DOJ's secret subpoena of AP phone records broader than initially revealed (236)
  • Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure (238)
  • The case of the missing mustangs; what happened to 1,700 wild horses? (129)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • US News

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • US news on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise