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

While the debate rages over net neutrality and how heavily Internet service providers should be regulated, the bottom line is that as Web usage explodes, somebody will have to pay for the capacity it takes for that connectivity, Liberty Media Chairman John Malone told CNBC on Wednesday.

“It’s either going to be the people who have a relationship with the consumer indirectly through the transport of the Internet or it’s going to be the Internet companies themselves … charging for volume usage at the consumer end,” he said in an interview aired on “Squawk on the Street.”

“The economics have to work because this capacity is not cheap.”

Last week, President Barack Obama asked the Federal Communications Commission to set strong rules to protect net neutrality, which would keep the Internet open and free.

Read MoreConfused by net neutrality? Read this

Malone said it would be “unfortunate” if the government intervened too heavily.

“Letting this capital marketplace play out will see multiple terrestrial providersat least two, since the telephone industry has pretty much committed to build out and upgrade their network.”

View original post here:
Liberty's Malone on net neutrality

Cabinet Minister Tony Clement has moved to distance the federal government from a Crown corporation’s decision to set up a complex arrangement of offshore companies as part of a tax “avoidance scheme” on pension investments in Europe.

CBC News reported today that the federal Public Sector Pension Investment Board, also known as PSP Investments, used a web of 24 corporations and other entities in Luxembourg and Germany to hold about $390 million in real estate in Berlin between 2008 and last year.

The investment structure allowed PSP Investments which manages $94 billion in pension funds for federal civil servants, RCMP officers and Canadian Forces members to avoid close to $20 million in German taxes.

While entirely legal, PSP’s own advisers label it an “avoidance scheme.”

The Public Sector Pension Investment Board bought these Berlin apartments, and many others, through a complex web of companies based in Luxembourg. A German tax official called it ‘a very aggressive way to avoid’ Germany’s real-estate tax. (Harvey Cashore/CBC)

A senior German tax official called it “a very aggressive way to avoid taxes” and a German MP said it was “hypocritical.”

Clement, who as Treasury Board president appoints the pension board’s 11 members, emphasized that it is separate from the government.

“PSP Investments operates at arm’s length from the federal government. It is not part of the federal public administration, and its business and affairs are managed by a board of directors,” he said in a statement Tuesday in response to an interview request.

The revelation that a federal Crown corporation is using an offshore haven like Luxembourg to anchor the very type of complex international tax stratagem Western countries are now attacking could prove embarrassing to the government.

Just on Monday, during House of Commons debate over a budget implementation bill, Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay repeated the Conservatives’ message that “one of our government’s key areas of concern is the issue of international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.”

More here:
Government distances itself from Crown corporation's offshore tax 'scheme'



why i wanted to expose the federal reserve and nsa to the world…

By: mikeroweRules12

Excerpt from:
why i wanted to expose the federal reserve and nsa to the world… – Video

PALO ALTO, Calif. The director of the National Security Agency said Monday that he understands why Silicon Valley companies have beefed up security to keep out government agencies, including his own.

The statement, during a speech by Adm. Michael Rogers at Stanford University, marked a small olive branch amid rising tension between technology companies and Washington following disclosures about the extent of electronic surveillance by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Adm. Rogers said technology companies took steps to enhance encryption in order to assure consumers that their personal data is safe from prying government eyes. In addition, some companies felt embarrassed after slides leaked by Snowden suggested the companies had cooperated with U.S. spies.

Adm. Rogers, who took over the NSA in April, has been charged with repairing those relations.

In the most recent clash, Apple and Google in September said they would no longer be able to unlock smartphones, even if ordered by a court, for law enforcement. James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Robert Hannigan, head of the U.K. equivalent of the NSA, said the moves are enabling criminals.

Im not one who jumps up and down and says either side is fundamentally wrong, Adm. Rogers said in response to a reporters question Monday. I understand what drives each side to their viewpoint.

Still, Adm. Rogers said he wondered if there might be some mechanism that would allow the government to circumvent the encryption schemes in special circumstances. It was unclear if he endorsed such a policy.

The NSA is trying to mend bridges in Silicon Valley partly out of necessity. The agency relies on young math and computer science experts to power its intelligence operation. Many of those techie kids go to Stanford and then work at technology companies.

Adm. Rogers, whose visit was part recruiting pitch, acknowledged he cant pay these students as much as Facebook or Twitter , but he can offer them something thats bigger than you are.

There are also the cool spy toys. Were going to give you the opportunity to do stuff you cant legally do anywhere else, he said.

Excerpt from:
NSA Director Offers Olive Branch in Silicon Valley Speech



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



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