Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[Q]: Kate Winslet  condemned Harvey Weinstein for allegedly sexually harassing multiple women over three decades.
âThe fact that these women are starting to speak out about the gross misconduct of one of our most important and well regarded film producers  is incredibly brave and has been deeply shocking to hear â  Winslet  said in a statement given exclusively to Variety.
 Winslet  joins a chorus of prominent actresses  including Meryl Streep  Judi Dench and Glenn Close  who all voiced their disapproval on Monday of Weinsteinâs alleged conduct.
 Winslet  won the best actress Oscar in 2009 for  her  role in The Weinstein Companyâs âThe Reader.â
[A]: Kate Winslet


[Q]: * * * France isn’t the first killjoy to quit the smartphone party. In 2015  the Canadian artist Garnet Hertz invented a cheeky device called “Phonesafe ” a masochistic lockbox designed to incarcerate smartphones for a set period of time. Hertz meant Phonesafe as a provocation  but the same idea quickly became a product. Today  you can buy similar  but mass-produced  containers on Amazon  and multi-phone lockers have become a mainstay in corporate offices and schools around the world. A McDonald’s in Singapore has even installed a locker designed to promote “family togetherness” and face-to-face conversation. If you attend a Guns n’ Roses concert or a comedy performance by Dave Chappelle  ushers will require you to lock your device in a neoprene pouch and take it into the show in that state.  The phone-locking pouch  made by a San Francisco company called Yondr   has a wide opening at the short end for inserting a smartphone. A magnetic locking mechanism  similar to those on anti-theft tags in retail stores  engages to hold it closed. After the show  this clasp is swiped across a counter-magnet  which releases the lock.  Yondr  is a surefire way to cut down on bootleg YouTube videos. In Wired  Alice Gregory recently took a tough look at the device. Gregory recounts her experience at a Chris Rock performance  where audience members waiting in the lobby had to forgo smartphone usage. The affair reduced them to “a roomful of jonesing fiends ” as she puts it. Ultimately  Gregory connects  Yondr  to a thorny question about civil liberties: the right of the people to keep and bear smartphones.
It’s an ironic conclusion  because  Yondr  is sold as a tool to provide freedom  rather than to take it away. To “Be Here Now ” as the company’s tagline puts it. It’s a promise to deliver presence—a tricky calling  to say the least. Presence has a long history in religion and philosophy  from Buddhist practices to the metaphysics of the 20th-century philosopher Martin Heidegger. Today  presence is most common in the various mindfulness trends that have overtaken individual and corporate life  in Silicon Valley in particular—collectively the critic R. John Williams has called them “technê-zen.” Cutting through the history and the rhetoric  it’s productive to think about presence in terms of attention. You’re present where you focus your attention—and you only have so much attention to pay. In the case of Chris Rock  he wants attention directed toward him  live on stage. Rock’s show might involve awkward improvisation or new material that he doesn't want circulated online. Teachers are less concerned about copyright than comedians are  but they still demand attention. I have tested Yondr’s effects on mind-wandering in classroom experiments with Dan Smilek of the University of Waterloo Vision and Attention Lab. Our research is based in part on the assumption that instructors want students to focus on the course materials  and not on Instagram  Facebook  or other distractions.  Yondr  can be a remarkably effective tool for enforcing digital abstinence in these contexts  thanks primarily to  its  portability. Rather than locking away devices inside lockers  or even inside a disused Catholic tabernacle  as I have done in a performance piece   Yondr  buffers the anxiety of being isolated from your device.
Given that the mere presence of one’s smartphone can reduce cognitive capacity   Yondr  offers a way to surf between the waves of a device’s presence and absence. You can hold it  but you can’t use it. This might be an especially important balance in classroom situations  where students see a teacher’s “phone shoebox” as an unwelcome imposition of authority. * * * Needless to say   Yondr  is still an imposition. And controlling attention requires more than just locking a device in a binge-breaking neoprene pouch. Joelle Renstrom has reported the results of her own  Yondr  experiment in a class at Boston University  where she had her 30 students lock away their devices over the course of a semester. At first  37 percent of the students found the policy annoying  but by the end of the term that figure had dropped to 14 percent. Those are promising  if tentative  results  but Renstrom’s anecdotal comments about the experiment may be more instructive than the data she collected. Renstrom describes her students’ initial experience of Yondr as “akin to caging a pet  a clear denial of freedom.” Moreover  she observes that some students left their cases unlocked as a sign of rebellion  even though they didn’t remove the phones from them. Rather than becoming “active resistors to technology ” as the scholars Christine Satchell and Paul Dourish call people who choose to ignore their devices   Yondr  users are ultimately the victims of technological disenfranchisement. When implemented as a mandatory smartphone prophylactic   Yondr  becomes a means of control  not of choice  let alone of presence.
Such top-down tactics might be enforced easily at live performances  as one of my research assistants observed firsthand at a Chris Rock show in Niagara Falls. However  as a daily ritual for high-school students  all-or-nothing digital abstinence enforced by an authority figure seems destined to backfire  possibly leading to rejection—or even worse  a legal complaint. In an attempt to tackle this disciplinary problem  I have been offering workshops to schoolteachers that riff on and revise the design Yondr originated. In the workshops  I provide a kit that allows students to make their own digital abstinence case  but with an obnoxiously loud Velcro enclosure rather than a silent  magnetic clasp. This semipermeable design—the Resistor Case  I call it—is intended to promote self-regulation  not authoritarian control. The Velcro acts as a gateway to conscience: It provides just enough resistance and noise to make its owner think twice before opening it. Michael I. Norton  Daniel Mochon  and Dan Ariely coined the “IKEA effect” to name the increase in value people assign to self-made products. With the Resistor Case  I’m counting on a similar effect  that students who fist construct and then choose to make use of their DIY phone lockers might be more compelled to use them. Of course  the kit will only work if the teacher provides a context for it that includes a discussion of responsible smartphone use. (The kit provides a series of cards to prompt this conversation.)
[A]: Yondr


[Q]: Sen . Chuck Grassley speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in December 2017 . ( Reuters file photo : Aaron . P . Bernstein ) We need a full - blown investigation of how the FISA court came to grant warrants to spy on Carter Page . In a word   the Grassley - Graham memo is shocking . Yet   the press barely notices . Rest assured : If a Republican administration had used unverifiable hearsay from a patently suspect agent of the Republican presidential candidate to gull the FISA court into granting a warrant to spy on an associate of the Democratic nominee ’ s campaign   it would be covered as the greatest political scandal in a half - century . Instead   it was the other way around . The Grassley - Graham memo corroborates the claims in the Nunes memo : The Obama Justice Department and FBI used anonymously sourced   Clinton - campaign generated innuendo to convince the FISA court to issue surveillance warrants against Carter Page   and in doing so   they concealed the Clinton campaign ’ s role . Though the Trump campaign had cut ties with Page shortly before the first warrant was issued in October 2016   the warrant application was based on wild allegations of a corrupt conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin . Moreover   the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page ’ s forward - going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i . e .  his Trump campaign communications . x With its verification by the Grassley - Graham memo   the Nunes memo now has about a thousand times more corroboration than the Steele dossier   the basis of the heinous allegations used by the Justice Department and FBI to get the FISA warrants . What the Grassley - Graham memo tells us is that the Nunes memo   for all the hysteria about it   was tame . The Grassley - Graham memo tells us that we need not only a full - blown investigation of what possessed the Obama administration to submit such shoddy applications to the FISA court   but of how a judge — or perhaps as many as four judges — rationalized signing the warrants . Advertisement We need full disclosure — the warrants   the applications   the court proceedings . Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are senior Republicans on the Judiciary Committee ( which Grassley chairs   while Graham chairs a relevant subcommittee ). As we ’ ve previously detailed ( in a two - part series   here and here )  they composed their memo in support of a criminal referral recommending that dossier author Christopher Steele be investigated for making false statements to the FBI ( which is a felony ). Initially   the senators ’ memo was withheld   then it was released with extensive redactions because its contents were largely classified — covering submissions to the FISA court   the secret tribunal established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . But following the release of the Nunes memo — the memo prepared by Republican majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Representative Devin Nunes ( R .  Calif .) — Senators Grassley and Graham stepped up their admirable efforts to get more information unsealed . so that the public can see it   even if the press prefers not to cover it . Last Friday   the Nunes memo asserted that the FBI and Justice Department had significantly relied on the unverified Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrants on Page . In the week that followed   House Intelligence Committee Democrats and their media echo chamber bleated about how things had been taken out of context   with some suggesting that there was plenty of other evidence to establish probable cause that Page was acting as a Russian agent . ( See my column last Sunday responding to claims by Representative Jerrold Nadler   here .) It was even implied that Nunes & Co . had deceptively reported committee testimony by the FBI ’ s then deputy director Andrew McCabe that the Steele dossier was essential to this probable - cause showing . We ’ re not hearing much of that now . Here ’ s the Grassley - Graham memo on the critical first FISA application   the basis for the warrant granted on October 21   2016 : The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr . Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier . The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr . Page   although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr . Steele ’ s dossier . We ’ ll come to the news article — the stupefying circular attempt to corroborate Steele with Steele . For the moment   suffice it to say that the senators have confirmed the Nunes memo ’ s account   except with much more information than House Republicans were able to include . Information such as this : When asked at the March 2017 briefing [ of Judiciary Committee leaders ] why the FBI relied on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration — and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation — then - Director [ James ] Comey stated that the FBI included the dossier allegations about Carter Page in the FISA applications because Mr . Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau . On this score   Grassley and Graham quote directly from the warrant applications : “ Based on [ Steele ’ s ] previous reporting history with the FBI whereby [ Steele ] provided reliable information to the FBI   the FBI believes [ Steele ’ s ] reporting to be credible .” ( Emphasis added .) I cannot stress enough how irregular this is . It is why there is abundant reason to demand that the judge explain his or her rationale for granting the warrant . As I outlined at greater length last week ( here   in section C )  in applying for a warrant   the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable - cause finding .  Steele  was not one of those witnesses .  He  is not the source of the facts .  He  is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians   much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay   sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge .  Steele  has not been in Russia since  his  cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago .  He  has sources   who have sources   who have sources . None of  his  information is better than third - hand ; most of it is more attenuated than that . For purposes of justifying a warrant   it does not matter that   in a totally unrelated investigation ( involving corruption at FIFA   the international soccer organization )  the FBI judged that the hearsay information provided by Steele   then a British agent   checked out . In his anti - Trump research   Steele could not verify his sources . Furthermore   he was now a former foreign intelligence officer who was then working for private clients — which is the advocacy business   not the search - for - truth business . A judge would need to know whether Steele ’ s sources were reliable   not whether Steele himself was reliable . Let that sink in   then think about this contrast : No actual FBI agent   no matter how renowned   would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator . Jim Comey   despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele ’ s   including Senate confirmations to some of federal law - enforcement ’ s loftiest positions   would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI   the Justice Department   the president   and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability . The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants   not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants . The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims : Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged   and if so   does the informant have a track record of providing verified information ? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point . A judge would need to know whether Steele ’ s sources were reliable   not whether Steele himself was reliable . Advertisement This is not esoterica . In the investigations biz   this is so basic that to call it “ Warrants 101 ” doesn ’ t do it justice . If you don ’ t have witnesses with verifiable   first - hand knowledge   you don ’ t have anything . Without them   to borrow Director Comey ’ s notorious dictum   no reasonable prosecutor would bring a warrant application to a federal judge   and no reasonable judge would issue a warrant . If there is no credible sourcing for the factual allegations in the warrant application   that is a probable - cause deficiency that could not have been cured by the reputation of the purveyor of the sources   no matter how sterling . That said   it is obvious that the less identifiable and reliable the informants are   the greater is the government ’ s obligation to be transparent in conveying the investigator ’ s potential biases . The Obama administration ’ s malfeasance on this point is breathtaking . Graham and Grassley recount : The FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier . In footnote 8 [ of the first warrant application   apparently repeated in the subsequent applications ] the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an “ identified U . S . person ” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS . The fact that Fusion GPS ’ s ultimate client was the Clinton campaign was never disclosed in any of the warrant applications   which ran well beyond June 2017   when the last 90 - day extension was granted . Patently   so much struggle and circumlocution went into crafting this “ vaguely limited ” footnote that we can only conclude the decision not to disclose the Clinton connection was the subject of much deliberation . The Clinton campaign ’ s sponsorship was not publicly disclosed until October 2017 . Before then   it is virtually certain that   to the extent the FISA court and Congress were told of the “ political origins ” of the dossier   these were benignly presented as bipartisan concerns about Donald Trump . That is   the  Steele  dossier phase of Fusion ’ s anti - Trump project was conflated with the earlier phase   when — as Simpson has testified — Fusion did documentary research on Trump during the Republican primaries for a conservative media outlet . It was not disclosed that   by the time  Steele  was hired to do the dossier   the project was backed exclusively by the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign . Manifestly   that was a material fact . If a prosecutor withheld an arguably exculpatory fact of this degree of significance   it could get a conviction reversed . As some have observed   a public company would likely face a stock fraud prosecution for concealing a fact so patently material from its required SEC reports . The Clinton - campaign tie should have been disclosed from the beginning . Now   consider what happened as the surveillance continued for the better part of a year . In late October 2016   shortly after the first warrant was issued   the FBI terminated its relationship with  Steele  because  he  lied to the Bureau about  his  contacts with the media . But the Justice Department did not report this to the FISA court . Instead   when the first warrant expired in January 2017   the FBI and Justice Department sought its renewal by   again   relying on the credibility of the guy they ’ d booted for lying . In another lawyerly footnote   they told the FISA court that  Steele  had been terminated not because  he  lied but because  he  was guilty of “ unauthorized disclosure of information to the press .” But that was not the half of it . Steele ’ s agreement with the FBI was that he would not communicate with the press . He made that agreement and then communicated with the press anyway — which showed he was unreliable   notwithstanding the FBI ’ s continued insistence to the contrary . He hadn ’ t just flouted the agreement by speaking to the press   though ; he had clearly lied about doing so . By mid - September 2016   at Fusion ’ s direction and even before the first FISA warrant was issued    Steele  had spoken with a plethora of Clinton - friendly press outlets . As a result   Yahoo News published a news story by Michael Isikoff on September 23   which reported precisely the information that  Steele  had given to the FBI about Page : that  he  ’ d supposedly met in Moscow with two top Russian operatives and discussed the lifting of sanctions against Russia . Advertisement How could the FBI and Justice Department not have known that  Steele  was the source for this story ? Isikoff explicitly stated that his account of Page ’ s activities was set forth in “ intelligence reports ” that were in the possession of “ U . S . officials .” Plainly   the FBI was privy to intelligence reports in the government ’ s possession — the purported “ intelligence ” reports  Steele  had provided as well as any others . Had there been another intel report from a different source who happened to provide the same exact information  Steele  had provided   not only would the FBI have known about it ; the Bureau would have touted it to the FISA court as critical corroboration of Steele ’ s anonymous sources . To the contrary   the FISA court was told : “ The FBI does not believe that [  Steele  ] directly provided this information to the press .” I ’ ve emphasized “ directly ” to highlight how curious this assertion is . Ostensibly   the Bureau seems to have been saying that  Steele  was not the source — meaning that there must have been another source   yet one the Bureau had not managed to identify even though this mystery source was described in intelligence reports accessible to the Bureau . On the other hand   what does “ directly ” mean ? By using that qualifier   was the Bureau conceding that  Steele  might have provided information to the press indirectly – i . e .  through an intermediary ? But that would make no sense : What would be the point of citing the Isikoff article as corroboration for  Steele  if  Steele  had been Isikoff ’ s source   even if indirectly ? It is not good   one way or the other . Either  Steele  lied to the FBI about speaking to the press   or the FBI consciously avoided learning that  Steele  had spoken to Isikoff and then speculated to the court that  Steele  was probably not Isikoff ’ s source . Either way   Steele ’ s credibility was a huge issue . That put in doubt the FBI ’ s vouching for his reliability   which in turn made disclosure of the Clinton campaign ’ s sponsorship of his dossier even more imperative . Or how about this :  Steele  gave a published interview to Mother Jones in late October 2016   after promising not to speak to the media . In trying to soft - peddle the palpable unreliability  Steele  had thus exhibited   the FBI rationalized that  he  was acting not out of dishonesty but in a fit of pique over Director Comey ’ s pre - election announcement that the FBI had reopened the Clinton emails investigation . This   of course   is the announcement that Clinton partisans blame for their candidate ’ s loss . So   according to the Bureau   Steele ’ s pro - Clinton partisanship induced him to such outrage over Comey ’ s announcement that he was moved to violate his agreement with the FBI . Wouldn ’ t you think it might then occur to the Bureau and the Justice Department that maybe   just maybe   they ought to let the court in on that teeny detail about the Clinton campaign ’ s being the sponsor of Steele ’ s dossier ? Instead they kept mum and they kept telling the court  Steele  was perfectly reliable . In fact   they kept telling the FISA court  he  was reliable even after  Steele  himself admitted to a British court that  his  dossier wasn ’ t at all reliable . Truth is a defense to libel . Suffice it to say   it was not Steele ’ s defense . Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele ’ s sources after months of investigation   even though  Steele  had lied to them   the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again   in April and June 2017   that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele ’ s reliability . By early 2017   however    Steele  was being sued for libel in Britain   among other places   by people accused of misconduct in the dossier . Truth is a defense to libel . Suffice it to say   it was not Steele ’ s defense . In May 2017   as I have detailed ( here )   Steele  was required to respond to interrogatories .  He  emphasized that  his  dossier allegations were “ raw intelligence ” that was “ unverified ” and “ warranted investigation .”  He  further described  his  reports as “ limited intelligence ” that described mere “ indications ” of “ possible ” coordination between Trump ’ s campaign and the Russian government .  He  was not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of what  he  ’ d been told    he  explained ;  he  passed it along because it needed further investigation . Yet   far from reporting Steele ’ s retreat to the FISA court   Grassley and Graham report that the FBI and Justice Department continued vouching for the reliability of his allegations . Advertisement Beyond all that   we now learn through the senators ’ memo   and some follow - up reporting   that two longtime Clinton cronies   Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal   fed their own anti - Trump dossier to  Steele    through a State Department official   Jonathan Winer . In the fall of 2016    Steele    while working on  his  Clinton - funded project   reported this Clinton - crony information to the FBI . Still   the FBI and Justice Department elected not to tell the FISA court that the Clinton campaign was paying for Steele ’ s unverified   unverifiable anti - Trump research . I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct . When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process   I countered that they probably had not even used the  Steele  dossier . If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application   I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court   make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources   and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent .
[A]:
Steele Steele