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



why ive decide to go to youtube for NSA FBI CIA Federal Reserve…

By: mikeroweRules12

The rest is here:
why ive decide to go to youtube for NSA FBI CIA Federal Reserve… – Video



Bitcoin Battles Fiat Federal Reserve Currency

By: Trudie Fae

See original here:
Bitcoin Battles Fiat Federal Reserve Currency – Video

LEAWOOD, Kan. (AP) A Kansas bitcoin company that was shut down after being sued by the federal government will be allowed to resume some of its business, a federal judge has ruled.

View post:
Bitcoin operator allowed to resume some business



2012 Jeep Liberty Sport 4×4 in Danbury, CT 06810
Danbury Chrysler Jeep Dodge 100B Federal Road in Danbury, CT 06810 Learn More: http://www.danburydodge.com/used/Jeep/2012-Jeep-Liberty-danbury+ct-adf160760a0a00e044552a883e28012d.htm Introducing…

By: Danbury Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram

More here:
2012 Jeep Liberty Sport 4×4 in Danbury, CT 06810 – Video



Ron Paul: BitCoin Could Go Down In History As Destroyer Of The US Dollar
BitCoin Could Go Down In History As Destroyer Of The US Dollar – Ron Paul. Former Rep. Ron Paul, (R-Texas), on the future of Bitcoins and the Federal Reserve. SUBSCRIBE for Latest on BITCOIN…

By: breaking economi 2014

Read more from the original source:
Ron Paul: BitCoin Could Go Down In History As Destroyer Of The US Dollar – Video



Metro business shut down because of bitcoin
The Federal Trade Commission accuses Butterfly Labs of taking real money from people who were trying to make cyber money. Read more at http://m.kshb.com/1mtl2p3.

By: 41 Action News

View original post here:
Metro business shut down because of bitcoin – Video

Like my co-blogger Will Baude, I was very interested in the Ninth Circuits recent case, United States v. Dreyer, suppressing evidence as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. I think the case is interesting because it demonstrates a view of the exclusionary rule that I havent seen in a while.

First, some history. Back in the the middle of the 20th Century, the federal courts often found ways to impose an exclusionary rule for statutory violations in federal court. For example, in Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379 (1937) (Nardone I) and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (Nardone II), the Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of the Communications Act. In McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), the Court adopted an exclusionary rule for violations of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court had a rather free-form approach to the exclusionary rule at the time, in part because suppression was seen as the judiciarys domain. The federal courts had an inherent power to control evidence in their own cases, so the Court could be creative in fashioning what evidence could come in to deter bad conduct. If the government did something really bad, the federal courts had the power to keep the evidence out to deter violations and maintain the integrity of the courts.

By the 1980s, after Warren Court revolution, the Supreme Court had a different view of the exclusionary rule. The scope of the rule had expanded dramatically when it was incorporated and applied to the states. But as a kind of tradeoff for that expansion, the Court cut back on the free-form approach outside core constitutional violations. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts saw suppression as a doctrine that had to be rooted in deterrence of constitutional violations and not just something that courts didnt like or found offensive.

In his post, Will points out a passage from Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon to that effect. And I would add the earlier case of United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), in which investigators had intentionally violated one persons Fourth Amendment rights to get evidence they were holding of the suspects crimes. The Sixth Circuit had suppressed the evidence on the basis of the federal courts supervisory power to punish the blatant abuse even though the suspect did not have Fourth Amendment standing to object to the violation. The Supreme Court reversed, blocking courts from using the supervisory power as an end-run around the limits of Fourth Amendment doctrine.

The new Ninth Circuit case, Dreyer, strikes me as a vestige of the mid-20th century free-form view of the exclusionary rule. The lower courts in the 1960s and 1970s had a few areas where they rejected suppression outside of constitutional law but recognized the hypothetical possibility that they might suppress evidence if the facts were particularly egregious. For example, a bunch of circuits held that the Fourth Amendment does not regulate evidence collection by foreign governments not acting in coordination with the U.S., but that they would suppress evidence if the foreign government conduct shocked the conscience. See, e.g., Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775, 782 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 712 n. 10 (2d Cir. 1975). But see United States v. Mount, 757 F.2d 1315, 1320 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Bork, J., concurring) (arguing based on Payner that lower courts lack supervisory powers to impose an exclusionary rule for searches by foreign governments). The caselaw was never reviewed in the Supreme Court, however, perhaps because those egregious circumstances were not found and the evidence wasnt actually suppressed.

Violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the issue in the new decision, provides another example. The history seems to run like this. First, in the 1970s, a few courts applied the free-form approach to the exclusionary rule and left open the possibility that violations of the Posse Comitatus Act could lead to exclusion if it were necessary to deter violations. See, e.g.,United States v. Walden, 490 F.2d 372, 37677 (4th Cir. 1974); State v. Danko, 219 Kan. 490 (1976). When the Ninth Circuit reached the issue in 1986, the panel did not focus on the Supreme Courts then-new more skeptical approach to the exclusionary rule. Instead, the Ninth Circuit expanded on the 1970s lower-court cases, indicating that the exclusionary rule would be necessary for violations of the Act if a need to deter future violations is demonstrated. United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986). Again, though, this was just a possibility, and the issue was never reviewed.

Dreyer picks up that 28-year-old invitation and concludes that the need has finally been demonstrated and that the exclusionary rule therefore must be applied. Dreyer cites Roberts, which in turn cited Walden. So on its face, the court is at least drawing on precedent.

But it seems to me that Dreyer is very vulnerable if DOJ thinks it is worth challenging in the Supreme Court. Dreyer appears to rely on a line of thinking about the exclusionary rule that the Supreme Court has long ago rejected. Of course, we can debate the normative question of how the Justices should approach the exclusionary rule, either in the context of constitutional violations or statutory violations. But just as a predictive matter, I suspect that todays Court would have a different view of the question than the circuit court cases from the 1970s on which the Ninth Circuits Dreyer decision ultimately relies.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

Go here to see the original:
Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule

Internet freedom activists are holding a rally Monday outside the Comcast Center in Philadelphia to protest Comcast’s proposed merger with Time Warner Cable.

The rally, from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. at 1701 John F. Kennedy Blvd, is organized by Free Press, a nonpartisan group that advocates to preserve open Internet communication and free speech. The group is demanding protections for net neutrality, and the rally will urge the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules that prevent broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon from discriminating against online content and services. Monday is the FCC’s deadline for public comments on the matter.

Speakers at the rally include Chris Rabb, a professor at Temple’s Fox School of Business, as well as members of Free Press and other allied organizations.

-Allison Steele

Go here to read the rest:
Internet freedom group to rally Monday outside Comcast Center

Today, court documents were released by Yahoo (via a Tumblr post, of course) showing exactly how far the federal government is willing to go to obtain digital information about its citizens. In 2008, Yahoo was threatened with a $250,000 a day fine if they didn't fork over their users' metadata. Yahoo fought a diligent legal battle, as they had no interest in turning user data over the feds, but …

Read the original:
NSA Threatened Yahoo With Daily $250K Fines for Not Forking Over Metadata

Summary: These so-called “trusted third-parties” may be the most important tech companies you’ve never heard of. ZDNet reveals how these companies work as middlemen or “brokers” of customer data between ISPs and phone companies, and the U.S. government.

NEW YORK Picture two federal agents knocking at your door, ready to serve you a top secret order from the U.S. government, demanding that you hand over every shred of data you own from usernames and passwords, phone records, emails, and social networking and credit card data.

You can’t tell anyone, and your only viable option is to comply.

For some U.S. Internet service providers (ISP) and phone companies, this scenario happens and often. Just one ISP hit by a broad-ranging warrant has the potential to affect the privacy of millions of Americans.

But when one Atlanta, Georgia-based Internet provider was served a top-secret data request, there wasn’t a suited-and-booted federal agent in sight.

Why? Because the order was served on a so-called “trusted third-party,” which handles the request, served fresh from the secretive Washington D.C.-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court. With permission from their ISP customers, these third-parties discreetly wiretap their networks at the behest of law enforcement agencies, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and even intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA).

By implementing these government data requests with precision and accuracy, trusted third-parties like Neustar, Subsentio, and Yaana can turn reasonable profits for their services.

Little is known about these types of companies, which act as outsourced data brokers between small and major U.S. ISPs and phone companies, and the federal government. Under the 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), any company considered a “communications provider” has to allow government agencies access when a valid court order is served. No matter how big or small, even companies whose legal and financial resources are limited do not escape federal wiretapping laws.

On a typical day, these trusted third-parties can handle anything from subpoenas to search warrants and court orders, demanding the transfer of a person’s data to law enforcement. They are also cleared to work with classified and highly secretive FISA warrants. A single FISA order can be wide enough to force a company to turn over its entire store of customer data.

For Cbeyond, a Nasdaq stock exchange-listed ISP based in Atlanta, Georgia, data requests can be put almost entirely out of mind. The company generates more than $450 million in revenue each year and serves more than 50,000 business customers primarily small to medium-sized companies in more than a dozen U.S. states.

The rest is here:
Meet the shadowy tech brokers that deliver your data to the NSA

A panel of federal judges voiced significant concerns Tuesday about the privacy implications of NSA surveillance tactics during a wide-ranging hearing on a legal challenge brought by the ACLU.

In an oral argument that was set for less than 30 minutes and lasted nearly two hours, three judges on a panel hearing the case at the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan probed claims by the ACLU that the federal government’s collection of data relating to “every phone call made or received by residents of the United States” is illegal and unconstitutional.

The ACLU appeal challenged a lower courts decision to uphold the NSA’s mass bulk data collection of phone records.

Judges Gerard Lynch and Vernon Broderick were appointed by President Obama. Judge Robert Sack was appointed by President Clinton. At some point, each expressed significant concern about the privacy implications of allowing the federal government broad access to a wide range of information without any specific suspicion of wrongdoing.

Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery first argued that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review disputes regarding the NSA program. In addition, Delery argued the program is constitutional and has been repeatedly renewed by Congress.

Lynch asked how well briefed members of Congress were before voting, and questioned how much they understood about the program. At one point, Sack chimed in, “We don’t know what we don’t know”about NSA operations.

Lynch and Broderick both questioned why the government’s justification for the bulk phone data collection program would not also extend to bank records, credit card transactions and other personal data. Lynch asked if the government’s argument would not also entitle it to access “every American’s everything.”

Both sides acknowledged that President Obama has publicly stated that there are other ways to get the relevant intelligence, short of the sweeping NSA bulk data collection program that now exists.

That prompted Lynch to ask, if that was the case, why government attorneys were there to argue otherwise.

The panel also discussed the need for federal agencies such as the FBI and NSA to be able to move quickly when connecting dots on the intelligence landscape, acknowledging that having bulk data already at its disposal would speed the process.

See the rest here:
Judges raise privacy concerns about NSA tactics



D.C. Asks Federal Court to Erase Second Amendment Opinion Recognizing Right to Carry
D.C. Asks Federal Court to Erase Second Amendment Opinion Recognizing Right to Carry.

By: Jinal10121

Read this article:
D.C. Asks Federal Court to Erase Second Amendment Opinion Recognizing Right to Carry – Video



Bitcoin vs. The Federal Reserve Andreas Antonopoulos and Stefan Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux and Andreas Antonopoulos discuss the fall of Mt. Gox, the greatly exaggerated death of Bitcoin, the joy of failure within the Bitcoin economy. SUBSCRIBE for Latest on BITCOIN…

By: Economic Collapse 2014

Read more from the original source:

Bitcoin vs. The Federal Reserve Andreas Antonopoulos and Stefan Molyneux – Video

A portrait of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi. Photo: Nic Walker

A senior Macquarie Group executive sought to ”engage the assistance” of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi in the financial services group’s fight with the Australian Taxation Office, court documents show.

Mr Noroozi’s senior staff agreed to use the financial services group as a ”case study” in a review of ATO policy ”U-turns”, according to the Federal Court documents.

A member of Mr Noroozi’s staff allegedly also told Macquarie the Inspector-General’s office would question ATO officers and require the agency to search its records for information that Macquarie lawyer Peter Speed hoped would ”assist Macquarie’s cause”.

Mr Noroozi told BusinessDay he always acted independently and impartially when investigating complaints about the tax system.

Advertisement

”We are doing a U-turn review; we are looking at the Macquarie decision because it has a real impact Our interest in Macquarie is, because we do not at the moment handle single complaints, not about the rights or wrongs as far as Macquarie is concerned, but is more about the fundamental issue of principle.”

A policy ”U-turn” is when the Tax Office changes its mind about how the law should be applied. While U-turns are allowed, under Tax Office policy they should apply only to new cases.

At present the Inspector-General of Taxation is able to investigate only systematic tax problems, but as part of this month’s budget, Treasurer Joe Hockey said he would give Mr Noroozi the power to investigate individual complaints. How and when the transfer of power will happen is yet to be determined.

The Federal Court fight between Macquarie and the ATO arose out of a long-running audit, after which the ATO alleged Macquarie had not paid enough tax because it was counting expenses against the domestic bank that should have been expenses of the offshore banking unit (OBU).

More here:
Macquarie sought help in U-turn policy

A portrait of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi. Photo: Nic Walker

A senior Macquarie Group executive sought to ”engage the assistance” of Inspector-General of Taxation Ali Noroozi in the financial services group’s fight with the Australian Taxation Office, court documents show.

Mr Noroozi’s senior staff agreed to use the financial services group as a ”case study” in a review of ATO policy ”U-turns”, according to the Federal Court documents.

A member of Mr Noroozi’s staff allegedly also told Macquarie the Inspector-General’s office would question ATO officers and require the agency to search its records for information that Macquarie lawyer Peter Speed hoped would ”assist Macquarie’s cause”.

Mr Noroozi told BusinessDay he always acted independently and impartially when investigating complaints about the tax system.

Advertisement

”We are doing a U-turn review; we are looking at the Macquarie decision because it has a real impact Our interest in Macquarie is, because we do not at the moment handle single complaints, not about the rights or wrongs as far as Macquarie is concerned, but is more about the fundamental issue of principle.”

A policy ”U-turn” is when the Tax Office changes its mind about how the law should be applied. While U-turns are allowed, under Tax Office policy they should apply only to new cases.

At present the Inspector-General of Taxation is able to investigate only systematic tax problems, but as part of this month’s budget, Treasurer Joe Hockey said he would give Mr Noroozi the power to investigate individual complaints. How and when the transfer of power will happen is yet to be determined.

The Federal Court fight between Macquarie and the ATO arose out of a long-running audit, after which the ATO alleged Macquarie had not paid enough tax because it was counting expenses against the domestic bank that should have been expenses of the offshore banking unit (OBU).

Read more here:
Macquarie Group sought Inspector-General of Taxation's help in U-turn policy



U.S. states take lead in writing bitcoin rules
Numerous companies in the United States enable customers to pay for goods and services in virtual currencies. But since bitcoins are not regulated by the federal government, users face a maze…

By: travell

Read the original post:

U.S. states take lead in writing bitcoin rules – Video

Dispute: The ATO has calculated that Macquarie owes millions of dollars in tax and penalties.

Macquarie Group has acknowledged that a revised tax bill following a full-scale audit by Tax Office investigators may be market sensitive and could move its share price.

The information, which relates to three years of additional tax, has never been disclosed by the homegrown investment bank to the sharemarket.

Macquarie’s admission of the scale of its tax problem is contained in an affidavit sworn by the financial services group’s external lawyer, Peter Speed, based on information given to him by company executive Kathryn Burgess.

The affidavit is among documents, obtained by Fairfax Media, that were filed by Macquarie during its recent Federal Court dispute with the Tax Office over treatment of its offshore banking unit between 2006 and 2008.

Advertisement

Offshore banking units, which are bank divisions that mostly used to do business with overseas clients, are taxed at a concessional rate of 10 per cent, compared with the corporate rate of 30 per cent.

In September, the Federal Court ruled against Macquarie’s bid to stop the ATO retrospectively levying the additional tax, which court documents show is at minimum in the millions of dollars.

During the legal case, Mr Speed, a partner at Sydney law firm Speed and Stracey, asked the Federal Court to keep confidential 14 pages of documents filed by Macquarie.

”I am informed by Kathryn Burgess and verily believe that the information concerned is information disclosing or revealing, broadly, amounts of tax which might be at stake between the applicants [Macquarie] and the commissioner [of taxation],” Mr Speed said in the April 2, 2013 affidavit, which has only now been released to Fairfax Media.

The rest is here:
Macquarie Group tax issues may be 'market sensitive'



Bitcoin Will End the Federal Reserve Currency Monopoly
Get the report: http://CrushTheStreet.com/bitcoin.

By: VisionVictory

Follow this link:

Bitcoin Will End the Federal Reserve Currency Monopoly – Video

REXBURG A man who was instrumental in overturning a Second Amendment-based law is coming to Rexburg.

Dick Heller, who was the central figure in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, will be making an appearance at a rally this coming Saturday.

The Second Amendment Idaho Tour will make a stop at 3 p.m. at the Rexburg Tabernacle.

The event is free and open to the public.

The state is sovereign, not the federal government, said Heller in a telephone interview on Monday from his Washington home.

Heller believes every citizen has the right to bear arms and wants as little government intrusion as possible.

The Second Amendment is an incorporated right, said Heller, that takes the power out of the hands of the state to implement gun control.

Heller also believes that gun rights preceded the democracy, which he said means no government should have any control over gun regulations.

Asked if he is advocating no regulations, Heller said, As close to none as you can get as far as the government is concerned.

Heller said responsible gun owners have rigid rules in place, with basic concepts like not pointing a gun at another person.

More here:
Guns to be focus of rally



Election Commission Approve Bitcoin as Campaign Donation
Election Commission Approve Bitcoin as Campaign Donation Bitcoin, the fast-growing digital currency, is coming to political campaigns. The Federal Election C…

By: shakaama

See original here:

Election Commission Approve Bitcoin as Campaign Donation – Video



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