Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

A protest against government surveillance in Washington DC. Civil liberties groups denounced the FBIs move as brazen and potentially dangerous. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov/Barcroft Media

The FBI is attempting to persuade an obscure regulatory body in Washington to change its rules of engagement in order to seize significant new powers to hack into and carry out surveillance of computers throughout the US and around the world.

Civil liberties groups warn that the proposed rule change amounts to a power grab by the agency that would ride roughshod over strict limits to searches and seizures laid out under the fourth amendment of the US constitution, as well as violate first amendment privacy rights. They have protested that the FBI is seeking to transform its cyber capabilities with minimal public debate and with no congressional oversight.

The regulatory body to which the Department of Justice has applied to make the rule change, the advisory committee on criminal rules, will meet for the first time on November 5 to discuss the issue. The panel will be addressed by a slew of technology experts and privacy advocates concerned about the possible ramifications were the proposals allowed to go into effect next year.

This is a giant step forward for the FBIs operational capabilities, without any consideration of the policy implications. To be seeking these powers at a time of heightened international concern about US surveillance is an especially brazen and potentially dangerous move, said Ahmed Ghappour, an expert in computer law at University of California, Hastings college of the law, who will be addressing next weeks hearing.

The proposed operating changes related to rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure, the terms under which the FBI is allowed to conduct searches under court-approved warrants. Under existing wording, warrants have to be highly focused on specific locations where suspected criminal activity is occurring and approved by judges located in that same district.

But under the proposed amendment, a judge can issue a warrant that would allow the FBI to hack into any computer, no matter where it is located. The change is designed specifically to help federal investigators carry out surveillance on computers that have been anonymized that is, their location has been hidden using tools such as Tor.

The amendment inserts a clause that would allow a judge to issue warrants to gain remote access to computers located within or outside that district (emphasis added) in cases in which the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means. The expanded powers to stray across district boundaries would apply to any criminal investigation, not just to terrorist cases as at present.

Were the amendment to be granted by the regulatory committee, the FBI would have the green light to unleash its capabilities known as network investigative techniques on computers across America and beyond. The techniques involve clandestinely installing malicious software, or malware, onto a computer that in turn allows federal agents effectively to control the machine, downloading all its digital contents, switching its camera or microphone on or off, and even taking over other computers in its network.

This is an extremely invasive technique, said Chris Soghoian, principal technologist of the American Civil Liberties Union, who will also be addressing the hearing. We are talking here about giving the FBI the green light to hack into any computer in the country or around the world.

View original post here:
FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance

India’s government handed over the names of more than 600 Indians with foreign bank accounts to the Supreme Court on Wednesday after public outrage over rampant tax evasion.

The court, which ordered the government to release the list, has given the names to an investigative team that the government set up in June to find the illegal funds that tax dodgers have parked overseas.

The court set a deadline of March 31 next year for the team to complete its probe and begin legal action against tax evaders.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi says he wants to prosecute tax dodgers and bring money stashed in tax havens back into the country but little progress has been made since his landslide election victory earlier this year.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said 627 people are named on the list. They all had accounts with a Geneva branch of HSBC, information that was disclosed in 2011 by an employee of the bank and passed to India but not acted on by the previous government. They are likely a tiny fraction of Indians with foreign bank accounts.

The Central Bureau of Investigation, India’s equivalent of the FBI, said in 2012 that $500 billion was held by Indians in tax havens overseas. Funds are stashed in tax havens such as Liechtenstein, British Virgin Islands, Switzerland, Mauritius, Jersey and the Isle of Man.

India has a flourishing “black money” economy that functions parallel to the legal economy. Undeclared income is used to fund election campaigns and buy land or real estate in order to avoid paying property taxes.

On Monday, the government disclosed the names of seven people who it said had illegal accounts abroad. That led to widespread outrage, prompting the court to step in and order the government to reveal all the names that it had.

The government told the court that it was committed to disclosing the names of people holding money abroad illegally. In an affidavit, the government said that since every account held by an Indian in a foreign country may not be illegal, it would investigate the accounts before disclosing the names of account holders.

India’s anti-corruption crusader Arvind Kejriwal said the special investigative team should carry out its probe in a rigorous and timely manner and that government action against tax evaders must be uniform.

Follow this link:
Govt to Probe Indians With Foreign Bank Accounts

No serious defense of the surveillance state can ignores its anti-democratic abuses, its lawbreaking, and its record of punishing whistleblowers.

Eddie Keogh/Reuters

In a New Republic article on NSA surveillance, Yishai Schwartz defends the U.S. government against the critiques of whistleblower Edward Snowden and his supporters. This defense warrants close scrutiny, because several of the arguments offered echo misinformation spread by national-security state officials.

The article begins by analyzing scenes in the Laura Poitras documentary Citizenfour where Snowden is holed up in a Hong Kong hotel, anxious that authorities might burst through the door and arrest him at any moment. “The implication is that Snowden has been targeted and persecuted by the government because he is a dissenter,” Schwartz writes. “This is false. Snowden is a dissenter, but he is also a law-breaker. And the latter is the reason he has been targeted …. The government seeks to punish Snowden in order to make an example, but it is an example to future law-breakers (and in particular, those who expose classified information), not to deter future dissenters. Snowden happens to fit into both categories, but most dissenters do not, and they have nothing to fear.”

Tell that to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In 2007, a dozen FBI agents stormed into his house with weapons drawn. “One of them ran upstairs and entered the bathroom where Mr. Binney was toweling off after a shower, pointing a gun at him,” The New York Times reported. “Agents carried away a computer, disks and personal and business records …. Mr. Binney spent more than $7,000 on legal fees. But far more devastating, he said, was the N.S.A.s decision to strip his security clearance … costing him an annual income of $300,000.”

‘What the War on Terror Actually Looks Like’: Laura Poitras on Citizenfour

Or consider Thomas Drake, who was careful to avoid revealing classified information in correspondence with a reporter about NSA waste, fraud, and abuse. Jane Mayer documents the trumped-up charges used to persecute him and destroy his career. Or ponder Jesselyn Radack’s story.

Is Schwartz unaware of these people? Surely he is at least familiar with Poitras, whose film he is reviewing. She committed no crimes when making documentaries about Iraq and Gitmo, yet wound up on a secret government watch list, subjecting her to harassment, interrogations, and equipment seizures. The claim that lawful dissenters “have nothing to fear” is demonstrably false.

* * *

A bit later in Schwartz’s article, he objects to the argument that “our surveillance programs are unnecessary, that increases in government capabilities inherently infringe on our liberty, and warns ominously that dictatorships begin their oppression with the collection of data,” countering that “surveillance is essential to countering threats from both terrorists and state espionage in the world today.”

Here is the original post:
Comforting the NSA and Afflicting Its Dissenters



This agency is more secretive than NSA, CIA, FBI altogether.
One of the most prominent US spy agencies is probably one you've never heard of…The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. “In the Now” with RT's Senior Political correspondent Anissa…

By: IN THE NOW

The rest is here:
This agency is more secretive than NSA, CIA, FBI altogether. – Video

Oct 172014

Crater Lake gets some snow

Emigrant Lake at record low

FBI offers $10K for man charged in bank robbery

Judge rules against California county in pot raids

Task force to review cases of 3 missing girls

Washington puts pot sales, fines online for banks

Tax evasion trial: Couple owe more than $1M

After 24 years, Oregon classmate killer released

Monsanto gives $2.5 million against GMO labeling

Economist: Pot benefits outweigh societal costs

Original post:
Free speech zone at SOU



20 Occifers She Riffs Arrested by DEA , FBI, CIA, NSA, ABC….LOL
2006 Privately paid corporate agents go after each other like cannibalistic vampires because of internal company policies….I mean really, like all these gov-corp's don't already do everything…

By: PseudoPersona (Archives for Free)

Read the original:
20 Occifers & She Riffs Arrested by DEA , FBI, CIA, NSA, ABC….LOL – Video

Beginner’s guide to SSL certificates

The National Security Agency (NSA) has since 2004 sent spies into private companies in a bid to compromise networks from within, according to documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

Agents sent in by the NSA targeted global communications firms under a highly classified ‘core secrets’ program dubbed Sentry Eagle previously known only to a handful of officials.

The documents published by Snowden mouthpiece The Intercept indicate operatives in the core secrets program worked in concert with companies to weaken encryption and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to break security mechanisms.

Draft documents published online detailing Sentry Eagle explain that the program used the “full capabilities” of signals intelligence (SIGINT), computer exploitation, defence and network warfare to ensure the protection of US cyberspace.

The document listed facts ranging from unclassified to top secret necessitating “extraordinary protection”, and demonstrated the chasm between unclassified information the NSA saw fit for public consumption and that appearing at times too sensitive for the eyes of allies.

Programs in the latter camp include an effort dubbed Raven which, according to unclassified information, reveal that the NSA “exploits foreign ciphers”, and also worked with US commercial companies to weaken encryption systems.

Publication of the “facts relating to NSA personnel (under cover), operational meetings, specific operations, specific technologies, specific locations and covert communications related to SIGINT” were all banned under these efforts.

A sentry program called Owl proved the NSA worked with US and foreign commercial companies and “partners” to make their products exploitable for SIGINT; Hawk detailed network exploitation; Raven on cracking encryption; Condor on network attacks; Falcon on defense, and Osprey on intelligence agency cooperation.

The documents revealed field agents working under the Osprey program for target exploitation (TAREX) alongside the CIA, FBI and the Pentagon. These personnel dabbled in clandestine ‘off net’ operations, intercepting and compromising a targets’ assets through the supply chain.

Read the original post:
NSA Sentry Eagle placed spies in private companies



FBI asks public's help in finding two sisters from Mariana Islands
Authorities say Faloma and Maleina Luhk disappeared from the U.S. territory of Saipan in May 2011.

By: KHON2 News

More here:
FBI asks public’s help in finding two sisters from Mariana Islands – Video

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

You have nothing to fear from the NSA: that is unless you’re from outside the United States, or you arouse the agency’s suspicion by chatting to Al Qaeda. “Try not to do that,” was the advice given.

The warnings come from former NSA chief General Keith Alexander, who told delegates at a security conference that the National Security Agency’s activities, as described by ex-NSA sysadmin and secret-doc-leaker Edward Snowden, are just the agency doing its job.

In a speech delivered to the MIRCon 2014 conference in Washington, Alexander made no apology for the phone call metadata siphoned by the business record FISA programme run by the NSA, including data collected on Five Eyes and European allies. Such collection is part and parcel of spycraft, and in line with the agency’s stated mission, he said.

“Our data’s in there (NSA databases), my data’s in there. If I talk to an Al Qaeda operative, the chances of my data being looked at is really good, so I try not to do that. If you don’t want to you shouldn’t either,” he told MIRcon delegates.

“It doesn’t mean that we didn’t collect on key leaders around the world,” he said, before referencing a hypothetical question he once asked of allied countries that indicated each spied on one another, regardless of diplomatic position.

“Nations act in nations’ best interest … we at times want to make sure a war doesn’t break out [and] it is important that our political, military leaders know what is going on.”

He added pointedly: “Somebody has to be in charge”.

The NSA pulled about 180 numbers a year from FISA records, which Alexander said was critical to “connecting the dots” and was an act that had been “100 per cent” audited since the Snowden leaks, without fault.

To shore up his argument, he recapped the US’s scuppering of a 2009 terrorist attack on the New York subway and the arrest of lead suspect Najibullah Zazi, who appeared through his phone records to have coordinated the bombing. The FBI swooped on Zazi as he transited the country based on FISA intel, Alexander said.

Original post:
Chatting to Al Qaeda? Try not to do that Ex spy chief defends post-Snowden NSA

While alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbrichts trial wont start for another month, the legal battle is already heating up in court filings, centered around two questions: How did the Feds locate the Silk Road servers, and were Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment rights violated in the process? In its latest response, the government says it doesnt matter if the FBI hacked the Silk Road servers last OctoberUlbrichts rights still wouldnt have been violated.

Back in October 2013 when the Silk Road servers were seized by the feds in Iceland, no one knew exactly how the government had located the websites servers. Soon after, the feds arrested Ulbricht in San Francisco, claiming he was the Dread Pirate Roberts and the mastermind behind the online drug bazaar. Since then, Ulbricht has been charged with seven drug trafficking, narcotics, and ID theft charges.

But the details about how the government found the servers remained a mystery until last month. At the beginning of August, Ulbrichts defense filed a motion claiming that Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the government, and that by the fruit of a poisonous tree, all evidence stemming from the seizure of the Silk Road servers should be suppressed.

In order to respond to the motion, the government was forced to reveal for the first time how it discovered the Silk Road. According to a response filed last month with a declaration by FBI agent Chris Tarbell, the Silk Road servers were discovered by the FBI because of leaky code coming from the Silk Road website. When the leaking IP addresses were plugged into a non-Tor browser, part of the Silk Roads login page appeared. The feds then contacted Icelandic authorities, asking for imaging of the servers. The entire process was legal and not in violation of Ulbrichts rights, according to the FBI.

The defense was not convinced by the FBIs facile explanation and filed a response last week with a declaration by defense lawyer Joshua Horowitz, who specializes in technology and computer software. His analysis of six terabytes of discovery data presented to the defense poked holes in Tarbells account and likened the FBIs actions to hacking.

In his declaration, Horowitz claimed that the FBIs description of how the Silk Road servers were discovered was implausible. He notes that the governments account of how the servers were discovered varies from the description the FBI gave to Icelandic authorities, and that many modifications were made to the Silk Road servers before the FBI claims to have reached out to the Icelandic authorities. Horowitz argues that Tarbell failed to follow even the most rudimentary standards of computer forensic analysis. Highlighting a number of inconsistencies he found, Horowitz asked for more information from the government.

In a response filed on Monday, the government steered away from addressing any of Horowitz claims or questions. Instead, the prosecution argued thattrue or notHorowitzs claims are irrelevant because they dont prove that Ulbrichts rights were violated.

The Horowitz Declaration nowhere alleges that the SR Server was either located or searched in a manner that violated the Fourth Amendment. It merely critiques certain aspects of the Tarbell Declaration concerning how the SR Server was location, the governments response reads.

In any event, even if the FBI had somehow hacked into the SR Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the response continues.

The government also questioned why Ulbricht did not submit a personal affidavit explaining how his privacy was violated. In response, the judge gave the defense until Tuesday night to submit a personal affidavit from Ulbricht. The defense has asked for an extension until October 9, because of the short notice and because Ulbrichts lawyer Joshua Dratel is in the midst of another trial.

Read the original:
Feds Say That Even If FBI Hacked The Silk Road, Ulbricht's Rights Weren't Violated

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency markets see prices increase following days of decline.(IBTimes UK)

The price of bitcoin has received a much needed boost, bouncing back up above $350 following an 8% rise in value since yesterday.

The price increase has had a positive knock-on effect across all other major markets, with none of the top twenty most valuable cryptocurrencies seeing any negative movement in the last 24 hours.

The biggest gains amongst the big players come from darkcoin and namecoin, which both saw a 10% increase that took their market capitalisations above $10 million once again.

Bitcoin Foundation comments on BitLicense proposal

The Bitcoin Foundation has highlighted the need for public access to the “extensive research and analysis” cited by the New York Department of Financial Services’s (NYDFS) in its BitLicense proposal.

Jim Harper, global policy counsel for the Bitcoin Foundation, said that the proposed BitLicense regulation should not “sacrifice bitcoin’s benefits” if the outcome is unknown or merely speculative.

“A regulatory regime that is markedly out of step with others is very likely to create inefficiency in national and global markets, which would suppress competition, hamper the delivery of benefits to consumers and frustrate consumers,” Harper said.

FBI’s warrantless hacking of Silk Road was ‘reasonable’

Prosecutors in the case of Ross Ulbricht, the alleged creator of the black market site Silk Road, have claimed that hacking the site without a warrant would have been lawful.

Originally posted here:
Cryptocurrency Round-Up: Bitcoin Bounces Back and FBI's Silk Road Hacking was 'Reasonable'

Twitter is suing the FBI and the Department of Justice to be able to release more information about government surveillance of its users. The social media company filed a lawsuit Tuesday in a California …

Read this article:
Twitter sues FBI, DOJ to release NSA request info

With only a month until the scheduled trial of Ross Ulbricht, the alleged creator of the Silk Road drug site, Ulbrichts defense lawyers have zeroed in on the argument that the U.S. government illegally hacked the billion-dollar black market site to expose the location of its hidden server. The prosecutions latest rebuttal to that argument takes an unexpected tack: they claim that even if the FBI did hack the Silk Road without a warrantand prosecutors are careful not to admit they didthat intrusion would be a perfectly law-abiding act of criminal investigation.

On Monday evening the prosecutors submitted the latest in a series of combative court filings from the two sides of the Silk Road case that have clashed over Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The governments new argument responds to an affidavit from an expert witness, tech lawyer Joshua Horowitz, brought in by Ulbrichts defense to poke holes in the FBIs story of how it located the Silk Road server. In a letter filed last week, Horowitz called out inconsistencies in the FBIs account of stumbling across the Silk Roads IP address while innocently entering miscellaneous data into its login page. He testified that the FBIs actions instead sounded more like common hacker intrusion techniques. Ulbrichts defense has called for an evidentiary hearing to cross examine the FBI about the operation.

In the governments rebuttal, however, Ulbrichts prosecutors dont directly contest Horowitz description of the FBIs investigation, though they do criticize his testimony in passing as factually and analytically flawed in a number of respects. Instead, they obliquely argue that the foreign location of the sites server and its reputation as a criminal haven mean that Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches dont apply, even if the FBI did use hacking techniques to penetrate the Silk Road, and did so without a warrant.

Even if the FBI had somehow hacked into the [Silk Road] Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the prosecutors new memo reads. Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to hack into it in order to search it, as any such hack would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary.

The Silk Road server in question, after all, was located not in the United States but in a data center near Reykjavik, Iceland. And though Ulbricht is an American citizen, the prosecutors argue that the servers location abroad made it fair game for remote intrusion. Because the SR Server was located outside the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise, the prosecutions filing reads.

In a footnote, the memo adds another strike against Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment protections: The Silk Road was not only hosted in a foreign data center, but also rented from a third-party web hosting service. And because Ulbricht allegedly violated the companys terms of service by using its computers to deal in narcotics and other contraband, that company was exempted from any obligation to protect his privacy.

Finally, prosecutors argue that for the 30-year-old Texan to claim privacy protections for Silk Roads server, he would have to declare that it belonged to hima tricky Catch-22. Ulbricht hasnt claimed personal possession of that computers data, as doing so would almost certainly incriminate him. But because he hasnt he cant claim that his privacy was violated when it was searched, according to the prosecutors reasoning. Because Ulbricht has not submitted any affidavit alleging that he had any possessory interest in the SR Serverlet alone one that would give him a reasonable expectation of privacyhis motion should be denied, reads the prosecutors filing.

Early Tuesday, Judge Katherine Forrest ordered Ulbrichts defense to decide within the day whether it will argue that Ulbricht did have an expectation of privacy for the Silk Road server, as well as all his other seized computers and online accounts. Shes given him until the end of the day Wednesday to make that argument Ulbrichts defense didnt immediately respond to a request for comment.

The pre-trial motion over which Ulbrichts defense lawyers and the prosecution have been sparring for the last two months doesnt directly seek to have the central narcotics conspiracy and money laundering charges against Ulbricht dismissed. Instead, his lawyers have sought to prove that the evidence gathered by law enforcement is tainted. If the initial pinpointing of Silk Roads server was illegal, they argue, practically all the evidence from the resulting investigation could be rendered inadmissible.

Early last month, the government responded to that motion with an affidavit from former FBI agent Christopher Tarbell describing how the Silk Road server was first found. As he described it, a misconfiguration of the anonymity software Tor allowed the sites login page to leak its IP address.

See the original post:
Feds Hacked Silk Road Without a Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue

Twitter just sued the federal government over restrictions the government places on how much the company can disclose about surveillance requests it receives.

For months, Twitter has tried to negotiate with the government to expand the kind of information that it and other companies are allowed to disclose. But it failed. Today, Twitter asserts in its suit that preventing the company from telling users how often the government submits national security requests for user data is a violation of the First Amendment.

The move goes a step beyond a challenge filed by Google and other companies last year that also sought permission on First Amendment grounds to disclose how often it receives national security requests for data. In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks about government spying and the so-called PRISM program, the companies sought to add statistics about national security requests to transparency reports that some of them were already publishing. Up to that point, the reports had revealed only the number of general law enforcement requests for data that the companies received each year, not so-called National Security Letters the companies received for data or other national security requests submitted with a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The companies asserted that without the ability to disclose more details about the data requests they received, the public was left to speculate wildly that they were providing unfettered access to user data or giving the government information in bulk. If the public knew how few requests for data they actually received, they argued, people would be re-assured that this was not the case.

[G]overnment nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation, Googles Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote in a letter to the attorney general and FBI. Googles numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

Although the companies won a partial victory in negotiation when the government agreed earlier this year to let them publish broad statistics about national security requests they received, the statistics turned out to be nothing more than a coy tease. They provided no real transparency. The companies were only allowed to publish a range of the requests they received. For example, they were only allowed to disclose that they had received between 0 and 999 national security requests for data. They also had a six-month delay imposed on them, prohibiting them from disclosing certain sets of information, and a two-year delay for disclosing other sets of data.

In August, Google and Microsoft pressed for the right to release more statistics, including a breakdown of the number of requests specifically targeting user content, versus requests seeking metadata.

Twitter was not part of the legal challenges filed by the other companies but engaged in its own battle for more transparency. Last April, the company submitted a draft of the kind of transparency report it sought to make public.

Twitter sought, among other things, to narrow the scope for reporting statistics. Instead of reporting requests in a range of 0 to 999, it wanted to be able to report actual aggregate numbers for the number of NSL and FISA orders it received and to be able to break down, in smaller batches, each type of request. For example, it wanted to be able to report the number of NSLs and FISA orders it received in a range of 1-99.

The Justice Department responded in September that the proposed report contained classified informationwithout specifying which part of the information was classifiedthat could not be publicly released under the current FISA and National Security Letter laws. These statutes come with a gag order preventing service providers from disclosing the data requests they receive.

Excerpt from:
Twitter Sues the Government for Violating Its First Amendment Rights

Twitter Inc (TWTR) sued the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday, intensifying its battle with federal agencies as the Internet industry’s self-described champion of free speech seeks the right to reveal the extent of U.S. government surveillance.

The lawsuit, which Twitter said follows months of fruitless negotiations with the government, marks an escalation in the Internet industry’s battle over government gag orders on the nature and number of requests for private user information.

In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California, Twitter said that current rules prevent it from even stating that it has not received any national security requests for user information.

The messaging service said such restrictions violate the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

“This is an important issue for anyone who believes in a strong First Amendment, and we hope to be able to share our complete transparency report,” Twitter said in a blogpost.

Tech companies have sought to clarify their relationships with U.S. law enforcement and spying agencies in the wake of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that outlined the depth of U.S. spying capabilities.

Twitter’s lawsuit follows an agreement between Internet companies like Google Inc (GOOGL) and Microsoft Corp (MSFT) with the government about court orders they receive related to surveillance.

The agreement freed the companies to disclose the number of orders they received, but only in broad ranges. A company that offers email services, for example, would be able to say it received between zero and 999 orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court during a six-month period for email content belonging to someone outside the United States.

In a separate case, a federal appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday will hear arguments on whether the FBI can gag recipients of national security letters. A lower court judge had ruled those secrecy guidelines unconstitutional.

CAN’T EVEN DISCLOSE ZERO REQUESTS

Read more here:
FOX BUSINESS: Twitter sues DOJ for right to reveal surveillance requests



76 Million JP Morgan Chase Accounts Hacked — FBI Lied about Silk Road? — Bill Gates loves Bitcoin
Donate: https://blockchain.info/address/1LAYuQq6f11HccBgbe6bx8DiwKwzuYkPR3 Subscribe: http://patreon.com/madbitcoins Sponsor: http://MadBitcoins.com October …

By: MadBitcoins

Excerpt from:
76 Million JP Morgan Chase Accounts Hacked — FBI Lied about Silk Road? — Bill Gates loves Bitcoin – Video



Retired HEAD OF FBI Tells ALL Illuminati, Satanism, Pedophile Rings
Ted Gunderson.

By: MensBusinessAsocEduc

Read more:
Retired HEAD OF FBI Tells ALL Illuminati, Satanism, Pedophile Rings – Video



FBI arrests, indicts creator of smartphone surveillance app (and its not the NSA)
The FBI arrested the maker of the stealthGenie app, charging the CEO with conspiracy and sale of a surreptitious surveillance device. The software is desig…

By: RT America

Continue reading here:
FBI arrests, indicts creator of smartphone surveillance app (and its not the NSA) – Video

LOS ANGELES Four years ago Chris Cheng came out of nowhere to beat seasoned marksmen, police officers and veterans to win History Channels reality shooting competition show Top Shot.

When I auditioned, I was openly gay. But I was surprised as nobody cared. They only cared how well I could shoot and represent our season, said Cheng, who quit his job at Google after the show and is now an NRA news commentator and is releasing his first book Shoot to Win. There is this stereotypical view of the gun community as anti-gay rednecks, but nothing could be further from the truth. It was interesting as the History Channel never outed me on the show even though they had hours of footage. I asked why and they said simply that it just wasnt relevant.

Indeed gay rights and gun rights often go hand in hand says Gwen Patton, the rep for gay gun rights organizationPink Pistols National.

We dont want people to hurt us, we want people to run away from us, and the best way we have found to do that is to be armed, Patton said. Now if someone tries to attack us, we can defend ourselves. Ideally we dont want any altercation at all, but if there is a perception that the gay person on the street could have a concealed gun, it might make the perpetrator think twice.

According to FBI Hate Crime Statistics, sexual orientation is the second largest motivator for bias crimes in the United States, second to racial bias, and far exceeding the number of religious or ethnically-spurred hate crimes.

Patton said while she has never had to use her firearm in defense, another gay member of a local Philadelphia chapter recently did.

All he had to do was display it, no bullets were fired, she said. Guns can be a very useful tool, but society has turned them into something they are not. They arent the boogeyman.

There are now more than 45 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide. With its slogan pick on someone your own caliber, members get together at least once a month at local ranges to practice their shooting skills, share self-defense tips and talk about gun safety. According to Chen, bringing gays and guns together serves as an important conversation starter.

Many in the LGBT community simply have never seriously entertained the notion of owning a firearm, or thought whether they want to be a victim or if they want to survive an attack, he said, while Patton says its false that right is all about keeping firearms, while the left pushes gay rights.

So some think of us as traitors, she explained. But at the end of the day, its about recognizing that the government shouldnt be taking our rights away our rights to be armed, and our rights to be happy and with the person we love.

Read the original:
Gay gun activists: Growing LGBT push to support the Second Amendment

NSA-proof iPhone 6?

NSA Comments Off
Sep 302014

By John Johnson

Newser

A customer holds his new iPhone 6 at an Apple Store in Augusta, Ga.(AP Photo/The Augusta Chronicle, Michael Holahan)

Apple says its latest iPhone has an encryption system that will keep users’ emails and photos safe from the prying eyes of the NSA or any law-enforcement agency, reports the New York Times.

The company says its algorithm is so complex that if it ever had to turn over data from an iPhone 6, it would take the NSA about five years to decode it.

Even if Apple is underestimating the NSA’s abilities, the principle isn’t sitting well with FBI chief James Comey. What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to hold themselves beyond the law, he says.

Comey cited the example of a kidnapping in which parents come to him “with tears in their eyes” and say, “‘What do you mean you can’t?’” The Times report also quotes security officials who predict terrorists will quickly embrace such technology, along with a tech expert who says law-enforcement concerns are being exaggerated.

In an earlier piece on the encryption by Matthew Green at Slate, Green says Apple isn’t picking a fight with the government. “Apple is not designing systems to prevent law enforcement from executing legitimate warrants,” he writes.

“Its building systems that prevent everyone who might want your dataincluding hackers, malicious insiders, and even hostile foreign governmentsfrom accessing your phone.” What’s more, “Apple is setting a precedent that users, and not companies, should hold the keys to their own devices.” Google has similar protection available for Android phones, though the encryption is not currently a default option.

That will change with new Androids out in October. (In other iPhone 6 news, Apple said last week it’s received only nine complaints about phones bending.)

Read the original here:
NSA-proof iPhone 6?



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com