First Amendment or Community Standards Violation?
“ART” has SACRAMENTO IN NATIONAL NEWS AGAIN! A neighbor reported: I saw the swastika flags back up on the house yesterday but instead of 2 now there are 4 of them.” CRIMEWATCH WILL …
By: Dave Jenest
By: Dave Jenest
Read more from the original source:
Nato forces kill five US Troops in Afghanistan BREAKING NEWS 10 JUNE 2014 HQ – Video
By: Raci Laro
Go here to read the rest:
SHOCKING FOOTAGE: NSA Gestapo BAN 1ST AMENDMENT, CONFISCATE CAMERAS – Video
ARY News Headlines 13 March 2015 – Rangers recover Illegal NATO weapons
ARY News Headlines 13 March 2015 NEWS HEADLINES ARY News Headlines 13 March 2015 ARY News Bulletin Today ARY Headlines Today 13 March 2015 ARY News Reports 13 March 2015 …
By: News Tube
The U.S. National Security Agency may have been planting surveillance software into hard drives and other essential computer equipment sold around the world for more than a decade through a shadowy organization known as the Equation Group, a respected cybersecurity researcher says. The revelation, if true, indicates that operators within the NSA have been collecting far more information on the spy agencys behalf than previously thought.
The Equation Group manipulated hard drives manufactured by Toshiba, Seagate, IBM, Western Digital and others dating back as far as 2001, researchers at the Moscow-based cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab said Wednesday. Equation has also proven able to reprogram a machines firmware, meaning that hackers were able to monitor even the most mundane activity on tens of thousands of individual PCs without their owners knowledge.
Privacy experts say the disclosures highlight the need for international companies to do more to protect customers from evolving threats to their online security.
Existence of the Equation Group, believed to be made up of 60 or so actors, was first revealed at Kasperskys annual security summit in Mexico on Feb. 16. Kaspersky on Wednesday released further information that strongly links the organization to the NSA.
The dense technical language in the Kaspersky report essentially argues that spies were able to install malicious software into computer hard drives that activate again and again each time the computer powers on.
Researchers found source code that makes reference to STRAITACID, STRAITSHOOTER, and BACKSNARF_AB25. Those names bear a remarkable resemblance to BACKSNARF and STRAITBIZARRE, two malware campaigns used by NSAs Tailored Access Operations team and first revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Costin Raiu, Kasperskys lead researcher on the project, told Reuters that while the Equation Group was able to steal files on any of the infected computers, they assumed full control only of computers used by high-value targets. Disk drive firmware, which was infected in this hack, is the second-most valuable space on a computer for hackers (after a microprocessors input/output system), the news outlet reported.
The Equation Group appears to rely on the programs EquationDrug and GrayFish for its espionage operations.
Its important to note that EquationDrug is not just a Trojan, but a full espionage platform, which includes a framework for conducting cyberespionage activities by deploying specific modules of selected victims, stated a version of the report updated Wednesday. The architecture of the whole framework resembles a mini-operating system with kernel-mode and user-mode components carefully interacting with each other via custom message passing interface.
Again, Kaspersky did not officially pin the Equation Group on the NSA, but pointed out links that are hard to dismiss as coincidence.
WASHINGTON D.C. — The Radio Television Digital News Foundation hosted its First Amendment awards in the nation’s capital on Wednesday night.
The first amendment awards celebration honors working journalists and corporate executives for their hard work and dedication in the television broadcasting industry.
Receiving the 25th First Amendment award Wednesday night was Nexstar Chairman, President and CEO, Perry Sook.
“Our local television stations do two things, one, we produce local content which is our service to the community and our identity and we help local advertisers and local businesses grow,” Sook told reporters.
“30 years I’ve been in the business, 15 with Perry, the man has lived up to the vision of everything he set out to do when he started this company,” said Timothy Busch, Nexstar’s Executive Vice President.
Nexstar Broadcasting started as one station 19 years ago. Now the company owns, operates and provides sales and other services to 105 television stations reaching approximately 15.6% of all US television households.
Sook says it’s all about viewers having access to their news on a 24/7 basis.
“We have endeavored to offer local news throughout the day so that if you’re working shift work, 3 to 11, we have a newscast for you, early afternoon or perhaps late night or we have expanded our morning shows,” said Sook.
Sook has 33 years of experience in the television and radio broadcasting industry and credits the viewers for the success of his business.
“For viewers and advertisers, coupling digital and broadcast is an unbeatable combination.”
By: Top Shot Chris Cheng
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a news conference following a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, March 5, 2015. Italy’s prime minister visited Moscow on Thursday in a bid to repair ties that have been hurt by Russia-West tensions over Ukraine. (AP Photo/Sergei Karpukhin, Pool)(The Associated Press)
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi , left, speaks as Russian President Vladimir Putin, listens, during their news conference after their talks in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, March 5, 2015. Italy’s prime minister visited Moscow on Thursday in a bid to repair ties that have been hurt by Russia-West tensions over Ukraine. (AP Photo/Sergei Karpukhin, Pool)(The Associated Press)
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, left, walks with Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja before their meeting in Helsinki, Finland, Thursday, March 5, 2015. (AP Photo/Lehtikuva, Markku Ulander) FINLAND OUT, NO THIRD PARTY SALES(The Associated Press)
RIGA, Latvia NATO and Russia are exchanging heated language reminiscent of Cold War days with accusations of sinister geopolitical plotting and human rights abuses flying across an increasingly deep divide.
NATO’s top U.S. civilian official said Thursday says that “an angry, revisionist Russia” was stopping at little to re-establish its clout in Europe, including redrawing “borders by force to achieve its goals.”
NATO Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow said President Vladimir Putin’s “aim seems to be to turn Ukraine into a failed state and to suppress and discredit alternative voices in Russia, so as to prevent a Russian ‘Maidan,'” referring to the Ukraine uprising which ousted Moscow-ally Viktor Yanukovych last year.
In Moscow, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov blasted the West for trying to create “new divisive lines in Europe.”
The Obama Administration and their cohorts launched a double-barreled assault on the First Amendment this week.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dumped 330 pages of regulatory Super Glue on the operation of the Internet making clear their intention to turn the greatest source of democratized communication since Gutenberg invented the printing press into a public utility.
Perhaps jealous of their speech regulator counterparts, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) held a hearing to begin the discussion of how they can regulate political speech on the Internet.
Here’s a newsflash to the FEC you cannot.
The blogs, articles and political information sources that the Democrat appointees on the FEC find so abhorrent are no different than the newspapers, radio or television broadcasts that they have no control over the content placed on them. Political news and commentary websites, whether using a link-driven system like the DrudgeReport, a news-oriented one like Breitbart.com or HuffPo, or a commentary-based blog like NetRightDaily.com, provides First Amendment-protected information to people who a generation ago got their news from dailies and news anchors.
It is this exact information expansion that drives the left crazy. While supporting the First Amendment when it applies to friendly news anchors and “all the news that’s fit to print” newspapers, the left sees talk radio and an open and free Internet as being a threat to their ability to appropriately shape the narrative.
Yet, Internet bloggers are a much more accurate depiction of what the Founding Fathers were seeking to protect. In an environment where small towns had their own newspapers, and Patrick Henry self-published his seminal work, “Common Sense” that helped fuel the revolutionary fire, the men who wrote the Bill of Rights specifically were trying to prevent the government from determining what political speech was allowed.
The current occupant of the White House has proven exactly why the Founders had this concern.
Under Obama, the IRS has targeted conservatives and potential conservative donors. And then, not to be outdone, the Treasury proposed formalizing what the IRS had done with an enormous intrusion into the ability of non-profits to engage in political discourse.
The FCC tried to place news monitors into newsrooms to make certain approved topics were receiving enough coverage.
Obamas First Amendment assault
Steve Cookseys fight for free-speech (N.C. editorial from the News & Record of Greensboro, reprinted in The Daily Reflector on Monday) ended in victory. Cooksey should not have been required by the N.C. Board of Dietetics/Nutrition to obtain a license for giving advice from personal experience on his blog. If in the end he was forced to obtain a license, it could mean that other U.S. citizens would have to obtain licenses for expressing opinions or giving advice.
As stated in the editorial, Cooksey did not claim to have professional credentials or to be a doctor or nutritionist. Forcing him to discontinue giving advice without a license invaded his free-speech right. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Even though this amendment was ratified in 1791, it still applies today and should be upheld.
There have been many advances in technology and media since the First Amendment was ratified. Because of the Internet, what we say can have an impact on a greater number of people than in 1791. Even though times have changed and our amount of influence has grown, this law is still the law. It is right that the Board of Dietetics/Nutrition subsequently adopted new guidelines stating that people can give ordinary diet advice without a license. This was a constitutional decision.
See original here:
Letter: Free speech upheld
By: YT NEWS
By: UKRAINE HOT NEWS
Originally posted here:
March 5. Latest news of Ukraine, Crimea, Donbass, US, NATO today – Video
BRUSSELS — NATO has an extensive history of “hybrid operations,” Russian Permanent Representative to NATO Aleksandr Grushko has said.
The Russian official cited the former Yugoslavia as an example.
“Each country or organization can learn from the experience of the Alliance,” said Grushko.
Russia is frequently accused by the west of conducing “a hybrid war” in Ukraine using methods that are not of a military nature, TASS reported.
“We were eyewitnesses of the perfectly well-known signs of a military blackmail, covert interference, supplies of weaponry and defense systems, diplomatic hypocrisy, manipulations with mass media, and explicit misinformation in the former Yugoslavia and in Libya in 2011.”
NATO officials “habitually cite precisely this set of assets of a hybrid war when they accuse Russia of inventing a new kind of military operation and applying it in Ukraine,” the news agency said.
The Russian official’s comments came after Alexander Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, now deputy secretary general of NATO, said on Thursday that during Vladimir Putin’s presidency Russia developed “a new form of hybrid warfare”.
Vershbow was addressing an inter-parliamentary conference on EUs common foreign and security policy in Latvia when he said the aim of the Russian president was to turn Ukraine into a failed state and suppress and discredit “alternative voices” in Russia, in order to prevent “a Russian Maidan.”
RIGA — EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on Friday spoke against “a bipartisan call in the U.S. to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine.”
See original here:
NATO and Russia trade "hybrid warfare" accusations
By: 123 NEWS
Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment Fight D C Handgun Ban Federal Judge Rules It’s Unconstitutional Fox & Friend – Video
By: UKRAINIAN CRISIS NEWS. LATEST NEWS OF UKRAINE. WAR IN UKRAINE.
Victor Pickard celebrated the Federal Communication Commissions vote Thursday to regulate the internet as a public utility at an internet victory party in Washington, DC. For Pickard, an assistant professor at the Annenberg School of Communications, and an expert on global media activism, the decision is a win for the public good, and maybe even the future of journalismtwo concerns that are very much on his mind as he sits down to write his next book.
Even though its still in its earliest stages, the book will stand on the shoulders of Pickards most recent work, Americas Battle For Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform, which he is currently on tour promoting. A slim, fast-paced account, it digs into a series of media policy battles that played out in the 1940s, when government and media activists fought to rein in powerful broadcasters and to articulate a role for radio and newspapers that served the public good, as opposed to commercial interests.
Their vision might have succeeded, were it not for Cold War paranoia, and an interpretation of freedom of speech that favored the rights of corporations over the rights of individuals. By the time the smoke had cleared, antitrust action had split NBC into two, but the efforts to make the news more local and less commercial were largely defeated. To Pickard, this failure to unhook the news from commercial pressures, and the subsequent triumph of corporate libertarianism, was a critical juncture in journalism that shaped the course of its future.
Now, while the impact of the FCCs ruling remains uncertain, and native advertising colonizes the Web, journalism has arrived at another critical juncture. As policy makers seek to define the public interest in a digital age, Pickards body of scholarship may provide a useful, if controversial, road map to our current media environment. As he sees it, technology has changed, but the concerns of the 1940saccess, sustainable business models for the news, and the role of regulationwill be central to maximizing the democratic potential of the web, and nurturing the future of public service journalism.
I spoke with Pickard by phone. Our conversation has been lightly edited and abridged.
Your previous book argues that the commercial internet faces a norm-defining moment similar to that of commercial radio in the 1940s. How so? What is at stake?
In the 1940s, as a society, we were asking big, normative questions about what the role of media should be in a democratic society. Questions that sought to define a kind of social contract between media institutions, the public, and the government. That asked whether it was healthy to have a news media system so dependent on the market, or whether we should be creating structural alternatives. I think were facing a similar crossroads for determining whether our new mediaor newish mediawill become captured by commercial interests, or whether they are able to serve a higher democratic purpose.
So those earlier battles to keep the airwaves free of corporate monopolies, and the moral concerns about ads invading the news, are being repeated today?
Yes, and net neutrality is kind of exhibit A. If we preserve net neutrality protections, our internet will develop one way. If we lose those protections our internet will develop in a very different way. So were certainly in a pivotal moment.
How do native ads fit in? Whats your take on them?
Read more here:
Victor Pickard on native ads and the new journalism economy
Cylvia Hayes is asserting her constitutional right against self-incrimination in an attempt to block the release of work-relatedemails she sent from her personal accounts.
Hayes asserted that right in a lawsuit filed Thursday against The Oregonian/OregonLive in Marion County Circuit Court. She has been under a state order to turn the emails over to the news organization.
That order is one of the several legal fronts on which Hayes and her fiance, former Gov. John Kitzhaber, are battling. The couple is the target of a joint investigation by the FBI and the IRS, which have sought records from 11 state agencies and organizations, and a separate state criminal investigation.
The lawsuit is the only legal remedy open to Hayes to escape complying with Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum’s order that she turn over the emails.
The Oregonian/OregonLive first requested that Kitzhaber’s office provide Hayes’ state-related emails as questions arose last October about her consulting work and her roles as first lady and as a volunteer policy adviser to Kitzhaber. His staff repeatedly said it was working on complying with the request, but said in January it had no access to Hayes’ records.
Rosenblum subsequently granted a petition from the news organization that she order Hayes to provide the records. Rosenblum ruled Feb.12 that Hayes was a public official subject to the Oregon Public Records Law.
As first lady and a volunteer policy adviser, Hayes regularly communicated with state employees and agency leaders through two personal email accounts and one from her Bend-based consulting business, 3E Strategies. In court filings she said she wasn’t issued a state email account because she wasn’t an employee.
Hayes and her attorney, Whitney Boise, argued in the lawsuit the same point they had made with Rosenblum – that Hayes is not subject to the state public records law because she is not a public official.
Rosenblum concluded otherwise, writing that she was persuaded that the former first lady earned public official status from her “extensive, high-level involvement in the executive branch of Oregon’s state government.”
The order noted that Hayes had said she asked for a state email but was ineligible without employee status.
TIME History conflict What Actually Happened in the Falklands, With or Without Bill OReilly Cover Credit: TODD SCHORR The Apr. 19, 1982, cover of TIME, featuring the war in the Falkland Islands The conflict between Britain and Argentina took the world by surprise
After more than three decades out of the spotlight, the Falkland Islands are back in the news, this time because of controversy over a claim that Bill OReilly has made misleading statements about his time covering the conflict that took place there in 1982.
OReilly says that he has always been honest about the fact that his reporting on the war was from Buenos Aires, not the islands themselvesas TIME reported back then, only 27 British reporters were able to get therebut Mother Jones magazine contends that his statement that he reported from active war zones suggests otherwise. The controversy continued Tuesday as OReilly further insisted that he never misled anyone.
But what exactly did happen in the Falklands?
In 1982, the archipelago had long been home to little else besides shepherds, sheep, 10 million penguins and a history of diplomatic disputes.
The islands had first been seen by British eyes in the 16th century, were claimed by the U.K. in the 17th century, went to Spain in the 18th century and back to Britain in 1833. Meanwhile, Argentina, which became independent from Spain during the period of Spanish control of the Falklands, claimed the right to the landthey had gained the Malvinas, their name for the islands, when Spain left, they arguedeven over the objections of many who actually lived on the Islands. Argentinas military ruler, General Galtieri, hoped to boost his own popularity by scoring a win in the islands. The locals, largely descended from Brits, did not support leaving the shelter of the British crown (which held them as a dependency, not an independent member of the commonwealth) for then-unstable but nearby rule.
In early April of 1982, the Falklands (and, by extension, the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands) were defended by a few dozen British marines already on the islands when thousands of Argentine troops suddenly swept in. In fighting that lasted mere hours, the South American nation seized the territories from the U.K., which responded by breaking off diplomatic relations and, via the U.N., demanding that Argentina withdraw. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her government promised that, were the request denied, the islands would be retaken by force. And, when the British navy arrived in the areato enforce a blockade and evacuate the invadersthat result began to seem more and more likely.
Even as war loomed, TIME observed that the spectacle was out of nowhere, it seemed, or out of another century. One of the worlds major powers, no longer famous for its empire, and a country on another continent, fighting a sudden territorial war over a couple of islands? Just plain weird. Nonetheless, the pride of two nations was on the line, and citizens on both sides supported action.
President Ronald Reagan was unable to mediate a diplomatic solution and, at the end of the month, thousands of Argentine troops prepared for a confrontation. Rather than landing in the Falklands directly, the British forces landed on South Georgia Island, one of the Falklands dependencies, to the east of the main archipelago. South Georgia was quickly captured, bringing the two sides within striking distance.
By May, Britains Defense Secretary announced that the nations aircraft had taken action to enforce the total exclusion zone and to deny the Argentines use of the airport at Port Stanley, the Falklands capital. Military targets in the Falklands were bombed and other nations, including the U.S., ended their neutrality in the conflict. (The U.S. sided with England; the Soviets would eventually speak up for Argentina.) Fighting increased, as did patriotic support on both home fronts, even as the costs began to climb.