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

Black unemployment double that of whites; NATO plans for new force in Europe – UCNN 461
Daniella Whyte with Urban Christian News Network Monday, September 8 2014 1. According to CNS News, While unemployment nationwide is 6.1%, the unemployment r…

By: Gospel Light Society International

Excerpt from:
Black unemployment double that of whites; NATO plans for new force in Europe – UCNN 461 – Video

Stanisaw Michalkiewicz o Szpicy NATO i euro-awansie Tuska (10.09.2014)

By: Kamienny Lew

Read the original here:
Stanisaw Michalkiewicz o Szpicy NATO i euro-awansie Tuska (10.09.2014) – Video

NATO Countries Have Begun Arms Deliveries To Ukraine: Defense Minister
Ukraine's defense minister said on Sunday that NATO countries were delivering weapons to his country to equip it to fight pro-Russian separatists and “stop” Russian President Vladimir Putin….

By: WochitGeneralNews

See the original post:
NATO Countries Have Begun Arms Deliveries To Ukraine: Defense Minister – Video

Nato members 'send arms to Ukraine'
Nato countries have started delivering arms to Ukraine to help its soldiers fight pro-Russian separatists in the east, the defence minister says. Valery Heletey did not give details of the…

By: MixEpic

View post:
Nato members ‘send arms to Ukraine’ – Video

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday he did not believe this week's referendum on Scottish independence would undermine Britain's contribution to the alliance whatever the result. "Without interfering with the debate leading up to the referendum, I dont see that any outcome of the Scottish referendum will have an impact on the UK's contribution to …

See more here:
NATO chief says Scottish vote won't undermine UK contribution to alliance

Sep 152014

About 1,300 troops from 15 countries – including the US and other Nato members – begin a military exercise near Lviv in western Ukraine.

Read more from the original source:
Nato troops begin Ukraine drill

If Scottish voters this week say Yes to independence, not only will they tear up the map of Great Britain, they'll shake the twin pillars of Western Europe's postwar prosperity and security the European …

View post:
A Scottish 'Yes' also means exit from EU, NATO

Brussels, Sep 15 (IANS) NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen Monday made an appeal for closer collective defence, community of nations and collective engagement. The NATO chief made the call while delivering a speech at Carnegie Europe, a well-known think tank, as he said the NATO now "see challenges on a scale we have not seen for over two decades, and they will endure for years to come …

Originally posted here:
NATO chief appeals for closer collective defence

Speakers Academy NSA Mountain West
Speakers Academy NSA Mountain West.

By: Jeri Mae Rowley

Read this article:
Speakers Academy NSA Mountain West – Video

Yahoo Releases Documents Proving NSA Forced Them To Violate User Privacy
“The US government threatened to fine Yahoo $250000 a day if it refused to hand over user data to the National Security Agency, according to court documents unsealed on Thursday. In a blogpost,…

By: The Young Turks

Read more here:
Yahoo Releases Documents Proving NSA Forced Them To Violate User Privacy – Video

Sep 152014

NSA Documents Prove ET Exists
NSA PDF Irish astronomer says he has successfully tracked UFO's…

By: VonHelton

View post:
NSA Documents Prove ET Exists – Video

SecureCom Launches Open Source Mobile Encryption Service

Follow this link:
NSA Shakes Down Yahoo for $250,000 a Day

Fugitive spying whistleblower Edward Snowden put in an appearance via the internet at tonight's Internet Party Moment of Truth event to back up his claims that mass surveillance of New Zealanders is already taking place despite government denials. Snowden had earlier posted an article on The Intercept website entitled "New Zealand's Prime Minister isn't telling the truth about mass surveillance …

Continued here:
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden says kiwis are 'being watched'

Former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden today accused the New Zealand government of spying on its citizens, just days before the country goes to the polls in national elections.

If you live in New Zealand, you are being watched, he wrote in an opinion piece for the Intercept, an online news site run by journalist Glenn Greenwald. In it, he said that he regularly saw data from New Zealand when he was working for the NSA.

His allegation threatens to upend what has so far been a predictable campaign a poll three days agoshowed Prime Minister John Key as the choice of 61.6 percent of voters, compared to 17.9 percent for his closest challenger, according to the New Zealand Herald.

Snowden’s charges drew a quick rebuttal from Mr. Key, who vigorously denied that New Zealands Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) runs a mass surveillance program.

There is not, and never has been, mass surveillance of New Zealanders undertaken by the GCSB, he said in a statement.

In his op-ed, Snowden urged New Zealanders to vote, writing that come Sept. 20, New Zealanders have a checkbox of their own.

If you live in New Zealand, whatever party you choose to vote for, bear in mind the opportunity to send a message that this government wont need to spy on us to hear: The liberties of free people cannot be changed behind closed doors. Its time to stand up. Its time to restore our democracies. Its time to take back our rights. And it starts with you.

Snowden says Key’s government, through the GCSB, funnels mass surveillance data into the NSA’s XKeyscore program. He writes:

The GCSB provides mass surveillance data into XKEYSCORE. They also provide access to the communications of millions of New Zealanders to the NSA at facilities such as the GCSB station at Waihopai, and the Prime Minister is personally aware of this fact. Importantly, they do not merelyuseXKEYSCORE, but also actively and directly develop mass surveillance algorithms for it. GCSBs involvement with XKEYSCORE is not a theory, and it is not a future plan. The claim that it never went ahead, and that New Zealand merely looked at but never participated in the Five Eyes system of mass surveillance is false, and the GCSBs past and continuing involvement with XKEYSCORE is irrefutable.

Key went on New Zealand television programs over the weekend to say that New Zealand intelligence agencies considered setting up a mass surveillance system, but ultimately decided against it.

See original here:
New Zealand spying row: Snowden as election wildcard?

Sep 152014

Fifth Amendment
Goss vs Lopez.

By: Dulcebee101

See more here:
Fifth Amendment – 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

Tor Project

Comcast has lately found itself issuing public apologies on a somewhat regular basisas subscribers share tales of horrible customer service.

But the latest accusation leveled against Comcastthat it is threatening to disconnectcustomers who use the anonymity-providing Tor browserhasn’t been backed by convincing evidence that it’s happening. And Comcast dismisses the rumor as wildly inaccurate.

It began Saturday with a site called DeepDotWeb claiming that Comcast has declared war on Tor Browser.

Reports have surfaced (Via /r/darknetmarkets and another one submitted to us) that Comcast agents have contacted customers using Tor and instructed them to stop using the browser or risk termination of service, the article said. A Comcast agent named Jeremy allegedly called Tor an illegal service. The Comcast agent told its customer that such activity is against usage policies. The Comcast agent then repeatedly asked the customer to tell him what sites he was accessing on the Tor browser. The customer refused to answer. The next day the customer called Comcast and spoke to another agent named Kelly who reiterated that Comcast does not want its customers using Tor.

Kelly allegedly told the customer that Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the Internet, are usually doing things that arent so-to-speak legal. We have the right to terminate, fine, or suspend your account at anytime due to you violating the rules.

There was good reason to be skeptical of this report. A search of the subreddit /r/darknetmarketsfor Comcast and Tor turned up nothing. (UPDATE: Here is the reddit post quoted by DeepDotWeb.) Any organized Comcast campaign againstusers of Tor wouldlikely inspire numerouscustomer complaints, not just a few, as noted by Cato Institute Research Fellow Julian Sanchez and security researcher Robert Graham, who wrote on Twitter:

“This story is wildly inaccurate,” Comcast spokesperson Charlie Douglas told Ars. “Customers are free to use their Xfinity Internet service to visit any website or use it however they wish otherwise.”

While Comcast publishes an acceptable use policy, the company “doesnt monitor users browser software or Web surfing and has no program addressing the Tor browser,” Douglas said.

In some previous cases where customers have documented poor customer service, Comcast has admitted fault and said its customer service agents acted in error. In this case, Comcast says it investigated the story and found no evidence that the encounters everhappened.

View original post here:
Comcast calls rumor that it disconnects Tor users wildly inaccurate

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Comcast completely denies their claims. In a blog post, the company said “We have no policy against Tor, or any other browser or software. Customers are free to use their Xfinity Internet service to visit any website, use any app, and so forth.”

According to a report on Deepdotweb, Comcast customer representatives have branded Tor “illegal” and told customers that using it is against the company’s policies.

Tor is a type of web browser that, in theory, makes all your internet activity private. The software routes traffic through a series of other connected internet users, making it difficult for governments and private companies to monitor your internet usage. Up to 1.2 million people use the browser, which became especially popular after Edward Snowden leaked information showing that the NSA was eavesdropping on ordinary citizens. Prior to that, Tor had been popular among people transacting business on Silk Road, the online market for drugs and hitmen.

The problem is that downloading or using Tor itself isn’t illegal. Plenty of people might have legitimate reasons to want to surf the web in private, without letting others know what they were looking at. But Tor has been pretty popular with criminals.

Some Comcast reps allegedly begun telling users that it is an “illegal service.” One Comcast representative, identified only as Kelly, warned a customer over his use of Tor software, DeepDotWeb reports:

Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that arent so-to-speak legal. We have the right to terminate, fine, or suspend your account at anytime due to you violating the rules. Do you have any other questions? Thank you for contacting Comcast, have a great day.

Comcast customers, speaking to Deepdotweb, claimed that Comcast repeatedly asked them which sites they were accessing using Tor.

In a statement to Business Insider, Comcast refuted the claims made in Deepdotweb, stating that they had launched an internal review into the discussions reported above:

Customers are free to use their Xfinity Internet service to visit any website or use it however they wish otherwise.Like virtually all ISPs, Comcast has an acceptable use policy or AUP that outlines appropriate and inappropriate uses of the service.Comcast doesnt monitor users browser software or web surfing and has no program addressing the Tor browser.he anecdotal chat room evidence provided is not consistent with our agents messages and is not accurate. Per our own internal review, we have found no evidence that these conversations took place, nor do we employ a Security Assurance team member named Kelly.Tors own FAQs clearly state: ‘File sharing (peer-to-peer/P2P) is widely unwanted on Tor’ and ‘BitTorrent is NOT anonymous’ on Tor.

See the rest here:
Comcast Denies It Will Cut Off Customers Who Use Tor, The Web Browser For Criminals (CMCSA)

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