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

Hospitality beaches | +64 368 6766 | Levin Manawatu, Horowhenua | 5510
Experience Kiwi heartland hospitality on the Nature Coast – a place to stop, relax and take your time. Chris Barbara invite you to unwind at Serendipity…

By: Chris Lloyd

Read the original post:
Hospitality beaches | +64 368 6766 | Levin Manawatu, Horowhenua | 5510 – Video

Sept. 22, 2014, 5:26 p.m.

A professional lifeguard has waded into the controversial dogs-on-beaches debate after snapping photos of community campaigners walking their dogs in a restricted zone.

Professional lifeguard Ken Holloway was unhappy to see dogs being walked in a restricted area, right, after Sundays pro-dog rally. Picture: KIRK GILMOUR

A professional lifeguard has waded into the controversial dogs-on-beaches debate after snapping photos of community campaigners walking their dogs in a restricted zone.

Around 2000 people took to McCauleys Beach on Sunday to rally against proposed changes to Wollongong City Councils dogs on beaches and parks policy, which would strip northern Illawarra dog owners of three off-leash beach areas.

The walk aimed to show public support for keeping Sharkeys, Little Austi and McCauleys as off-leash beaches, but drew the ire of lifeguard Ken Holloway when he noticed a small number of owners walking their dogs in restricted areas.

Mr Holloway, who had been tending to an injured surfer with other Sandon Point Surf Life Saving Club members at the time, said he was unsure if it was ignorance or just total disregard that caused them to flout the dog ban.

Thousands hit McCauleys in support of dog beaches: photos

After the dog owners had their say, did their walk and got all of the publicity …a number of them chose to walk back around the rocks over the rock platform [at Sandon Point], he said.

It is not just enough to have their area where they can exercise their dogs, they want to push the envelope and go to other areas which have been set aside for good reasons.

See more here:
Lifeguard claims dog owners breached zone during rally

BOOO Sept Oct Nov Dec BOOM.


Originally posted here:

Freedom of Speech – Why Liberty?
Having the ability to freely exchange ideas creates better governing and better communities. Catherine Sevcenko describes her time working overseas in Budapest and Moscow and understanding…

By: catoinstitutevideo

Read more:
Freedom of Speech – Why Liberty? – Video

Illuminati is a standalone card game made by Steve Jackson Games (SJG), inspired by the 1975 book, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. The game has ominous secret societies competing with each other to control the world through sinister means, including legal, illegal, and even mystical. It was designed as a “tongue-in-cheek rather than serious”[1] take on conspiracy theories. It contains groups named similarly to real world organizations, such as the Society for Creative Anachronism and the Semiconscious Liberation Army.[2] It can be played by two to eight players. Depending on the number of players, a game can take between one and six hours.

In September 1981, Steve Jackson and his regular freelance cover artist Dave Martin discussed their shared admiration of the Illuminatus! Trilogy, and the latter suggested a game. Steve Jackson decided against adapting the novel because of the expense of game rights, and the difficulty of adapting a novel with such convoluted plots. He decided “a game about the secret-conspiracy idea behind Illuminatus!” was doable. After doing research on the Illuminati and conspiracy theories, and “extensive and enthusiastic playtesting” it went on the market in July 1982 in the Pocket Box format (a plastic box the size of a mass-market paperback) which was at the time the usual for SJG. Over the next few years, three expansions for the Pocket Box Illuminati game were publishedthe first two were substantially incorporated into the deluxe edition, while the third was an earlier version of what would become Illuminati: Brainwash.

Robert Shea provided a four-paragraph introduction to the rulebook for the Illuminati Expansion Set 1 (1983), in which he wrote, “Maybe the Illuminati are behind this game. They must bethey are, by definition, behind everything.”

In 1995 Wilson criticized some of these products for exploiting the Illuminatus! name without paying royalties by taking advantage of legal loopholes.[3] Later commentators have attributed both the game and the Illuminatus! Trilogy as using real conspiracies as “targets of ridicule.”[4]

The game is played with a deck of special cards, money chips (representing millions of dollars in low-denomination unmarked banknotes) and two six-sided dice. There are three types of cards:

The players take role of Illuminati societies that struggle to take over the world. The Pocket Box edition depicted six Illuminati groups: The Bavarian Illuminati, The Discordian Society, The UFOs, The Servants of Cthulhu, The Bermuda Triangle, and The Gnomes of Zrich. The deluxe edition added the Society of Assassins and The Network, and the Illuminati Y2K expansion added the Church of The SubGenius and Shangri-La.

The world is represented by group cards such as Secret Masters of Fandom, the CIA, The International Communist Conspiracy, Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow, California, and many more there are over 300 official cards available. Every group and Illuminati has some Power, Resistance and Income values; most of the world groups have an Alignment. The game is written with the usual SJG humor. The game uses a multitude of conspiracy theory in-jokes, with cards such as the Boy Sprouts (where sinister youth leaders influence the world leaders of tomorrow), the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, the Mafia, two headed Anti-Nuclear Activists, or Trekkies.

Special cards represent unexpected phenomena and features, for example increasing Income or Resistance of a group.

The game is played in turns. The primary Illuminati (player) activity is taking control of groups. During an attack to take control, the attacker must overcome the Resistance of attacked groups with combined Power of his groups (affected by Alignment of attacker and attacked), money spent, and influence of special cards. The attacked group can be defended by spending money and special cards by other players (especially by the controlling Illuminati if the group is already controlled). After a successful attack to take control, the card is placed (along the special markers) next to Illuminati, or another already controlled group forming a power structure.

Each group has its own money, best marked by placing each group’s money counters on that group. Money is moved slowly, only one step at a time between groups once per turn. Money in the Illuminated group is accessible for defense of or attacks on all groups in the entire world. Money in the groups can only be used in attacks by or against that group, but gives double defense bonus when spent.

Read more here:
Illuminati (game) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content Marketing, Social and SEO
You'll learn more in an hour on content marketing, social and SEO from this week's show with Brent Carnduffthan you would in attending a 3 day conference. If you want to use your time…

By: Janet Fouts

View post:
Content Marketing, Social and SEO – Video

Ninja Turtles Illuminati Subliminal Message EXPOSED False Flag Celebration in Plain Sight!
The Satanic Cult known as The Illuminati will hide the truth right in plain sight !!! Again this time using a poster for the new ninja turtles movie!! The poster was released on September 11th…

By: The Vigilant Christian

Ninja Turtles Illuminati Subliminal Message EXPOSED False Flag Celebration in Plain Sight! – Video

The National Security Agency has some of the brightest minds working on its sophisticated surveillance programs, including its metadata collection efforts. But a new chat program designed by a middle-school dropoutin his spare time may turn out to be one of the best solutions to thwart those efforts.

Prompted by Edward Snowdens revelations about the governments intrusive surveillance activities, loosely knit citizen militias of technologists and security professionals have cropped up around the world to develop systems to protect us from government agencies out to identify us online and grab our communications.

John Brooks is now among them.

Brooks, who is just 22 and a self-taught coder who dropped out of school at 13, was always concerned about privacy and civil liberties. Four years ago he began work on a program for encrypted instant messaging that uses Tor hidden services for the protected transmission of communications. The program, which he dubbed Ricochet, began as a hobby. But by the time he finished, he had a full-fledged desktop client that was easy to use, offered anonymity and encryption, and even resolved the issue of metadatathe to and from headers and IP addresses spy agencies use to identify and track communicationslong before the public was aware that the NSA was routinely collecting metadata in bulk for its spy programs. The only problem Brooks had with the program was that few people were interested in using it. Although hed made Ricochets code open source, Brooks never had it formally audited for security and did nothing to promote it, so few people even knew about it.

Ricochet is idiot-proof and anonymous.

Then the Snowden leaks happened and metadata made headlines. Brooks realized he already had a solution that resolved a problem everyone else was suddenly scrambling to fix. Though ordinary encrypted email and instant messaging protect the contents of communications, metadata allows authorities to map relationships between communicants and subpoena service providers for subscriber information that can help unmask whistleblowers, journalistss sources and others. Its not just these kind of people whose privacy is harmed by metadata, however; in 2012 it was telltale email metadata that helped unmask former CIA director and war commander General David Petraeus and unravel his affair with Paula Broadwall.

With metadata suddenly in the spotlight, Brooks decided earlier this year to dust off his Ricochet program and tweak it to make it more eleganthe knew hed still have a problem, however, getting anyone to adopt it. He wasnt a known name in the security world and there was no reason anyone should trust him or his program.

Enter, a group formed by Australian security journalist Patrick Gray. Last July, Gray announced that he was working with HD Moore, developer of the Metasploit Framework tool used by security researchers to pen-test systems, and with another respected security professional who goes by his hacker handle The Grugq, to craft a secure, open-source encrypted chat program cobbled together from parts of existing anonymity and messaging systemssuch as Prosody, Pidgin and Tor. They wanted a system that was highly secure, user friendly and metadata-free. Gray says his primary motivation was to protect the anonymity of sources who contact journalists.

At the moment, when sources contact a journalist, theyre going to leave a metadata trail, whether its a phone call record or instant message or email record [regardless of whether or not the content of their communication is encrypted], he says. And that data is currently accessible to authorities without a warrant.

When Brooks wrote to say hed already designed a chat program that eliminated metadata, Gray and his group took a look at the code and quickly dropped their plan to develop their own tool, in favor of working with Brooks to develop his.

Read this article:
Middle-School Dropout Codes Clever Chat Program That Foils NSA Spying

In the fall of 1964, UC Berkeley administrators told students that they could no longer engage in political organizing at the entrance to campus. This directive sparked a massive backlash from student activists who refused to stop organizing and ultimately staged a sit-in on campus, launching what became known as the Free Speech Movement.

Lynne Hollander, then a UC Berkeley senior, remembers certain moments well including the time a group of arrested students attempted to sing “We Shall Overcome” inside Santa Rita Jail. In a recent interview, Hollander, now 73, recalled the fear students experienced behind bars. “We were no longer facing this sort of liberal UC administration. We were facing cops with guns. That has a very different effect upon on you.”

In an upcoming theatrical production commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, Hollander will revisit the events of 1964 in a way she never has before through the eyes of a UC Berkeley official whom students were up against decades earlier. Hollander will inhabit the role of then-Vice Chancellor Alex Sherriffs. Stagebridge, an Oakland-based nonprofit arts organization, is producing the musical production, called FSM, with performances at the Brava Theater Center in San Francisco this weekend and at Berkeley Repertory Theatre’s Thrust Stage the following weekend.

“If we do it well, it brings it all to life again,” said Hollander, an associate producer and historical consultant for the musical, and the widow of Mario Savio, a central leader in the protests. Even in the first workshops of the production, she said, “You had that same sense of standing up for this cause that you deeply believed in and feeling very triumphant.”

Stagebridge, a theater company that offers classes and performance opportunities for senior citizens, has been working on FSM for more than a year, developing the project in collaboration with Berkeley Rep and the Bay Area Playwrights Foundation. The co-composers and co-lyricists of the show are Daniel Savio, Mario Savio’s son, and Hollander, and Bruce Barthol, a Berkeley native who participated in the protests as a sixteen-year-old freshman.

The production features a cast of sixteen actors a mix of older performers who lived through the events in some capacity and younger performers playing the parts of student activists. The story primarily takes place in the 1960s, but also includes scenes in the present day, featuring Free Speech alumni fifty years later. Actors take on multiple roles. Hollander, a Stagebridge company member, also plays a present-day graduate student activist, for example.

The show features a diverse musical score, which includes folk and rock music reminiscent of the era as well as more traditional musical theater-style songs, in a similar vein as Kurt Weill’s Threepenny Opera, said Daniel Savio.

With the production reaching Bay Area audiences exactly fifty years after the protests first erupted, FSM is a unique way to honor the legacy of the free speech movement through a project guided by people who lived through the historic events, said Stagebridge executive director Marge Betley.

“It’s such a part of the identity of this region,” she said. “I hope that what audiences will get out of it is in some ways similar to what our participants get out of it. For people who were coming of age at that time, it’s a great way to look back … and for people who are younger, I think it will give them an insight into [the protests] that is richer and more complex than some of the stereotypes they may think of when they think of the Free Speech Movement.”

The story centers on real players in the conflict including Mario Savio and then-UC president Clark Kerr as well as composite and fictional characters. FSM playwright Joan Holden, a longtime writer with the San Francisco Mime Troupe, said she drew inspiration from focus groups she held with former student protesters. “The thing people said over and over again was, ‘We grew up.’ It was about busting loose from the university’s parental authority.”

Read the original post:
Relive the Famous Youth Rebellion of the 1960s

The pseudonymous nature of bitcoin is an oft-debated characteristic of the technology and it brings up a host of opinions, some of which are valid and others, not so much. Although I believe that bitcoin is a better payment system than current conventional systems, its futile to argue that pseudonymous (or anonymous) financial transactions over the network are a problem or a benefit of bitcoin itself.

The real question that needs to be asked is: should those that participate in the bitcoin network adhere to the same personal identification standards (commonly referred to as KYC or Know Your Customer) as those that are set for conventional payment systems? And if so, why?

There are many who strongly support the idea that, as citizens of free and democratic countries, we have basic personal rights to financial privacy, including financial transactions. This is a nice idea and there are several valid business reasons that support this concept. That said, we have to take into consideration the reality of how our government agencies operate.

But before I turn to that, its important to note that in order to setup a conventional bank account regardless of whether its a personal or business account we must all provide detailed personal information to our bankers. What most of us do not correlate is that a bank account also enables us to participate in and transact using fiat currencies and conventional payment systems such as Visa, MasterCard, Interac, etc. I dont think anyone would argue with me over this.

So back to our government agencies: across the developed world, governments have chosen to track financial transactions as a primary method of combatting illicit business activity. This mandate gained momentum with the U.S. war on drugs and has been bolstered considerably by the perceived war on terror. The reality is that this is a directive that our elected governments have chosen to enforce so we all must be aware of it and take it into consideration.

As a result of this strategy, government-based banking and financial services regulators have put stringent rules in place that require banks, financial service providers and similar to track and report, if necessary, on our financial transactions. Because our personal information is provided to the banks at the time of opening a bank account, our personal information is also passed on to government agencies, if required.

Regardless of their reasoning or the validity of their directives, governments use conventional banking and payment networks to monitor commerce across the globe for perceived illicit activity. The information they collect holds a tremendous amount of value and they have built significant infrastructure around it.

Now along comes bitcoin, which operates independent of conventional banking networks and it is a decentralized global network. No central authority has control over the bitcoin network. This is a major benefit of the bitcoin network, but its innovative structure is a cause for concern for government agencies. They do not and cannot control the bitcoin network so they cannot track financial transactions and therefore cannot use their conventional methods to track perceived illicit activity.

Banking regulators have sent messages to banks suggesting that they avoid doing business with individuals or companies involved in bitcoin. They have often used the rational that bitcoin is too risky as a speculative investment as the reasoning for their warning. This is a fair warning, but I suspect that the explanation above is the primary reason they have asked the banks to step back from bitcoin.

Banks can still choose to work with those associated with bitcoin, and were seeing some forward-thinking banks doing just that. Its my view that bitcoin has already passed the point of critical mass and Id be very surprised if it does not continue to proliferate. However, its quite uncommon for a bank to go against the suggestion of their regulator. The government regulators hold a lot of power over the banks and getting on the wrong side of them can make for a miserable time. Its therefore understandable that banks are cautious and most of them have done exactly what the regulators have recommended in regards to bitcoin.

Read the original:
Bitcoin isnt risky when you know your customers

Despite many incredible advances, the functionality of prosthetic limbs remains limited. Theres no mystery why any kind of arm or leg that you strap on to the soft exterior surfaces of your body and remove just as handily will always remain a foreign contrivance with only mortal power. In order to wield any artificial limb with full strength and confidence we are going to need to plug it in properly, so that it becomes a real part of our musculoskeletal system. Researchers at the Royal National Orthopedic hospital have now created an implant that does just that by interfacing a leg prosthesis directly toyourendoskeleton.

Bighorn sheep ram their heads together with impact forces exceeding 3400 newtons. Imagine if these guys, or perhaps giant elk, had to torque each other about on antlers held in place only by a cup and harness. Nobody would get the girl. Prosthetic designers know this and have finally begun to do what has to be done. A technique known as osseointegration was initially developed[PDF] by various researchers, primarily to bond titanium implants to bone in the arm. The grand view is that once bone-implant continuity is achieved, the groundwork is there for overlying muscularization, sensory investment, and nervous motor control to be extended to the new machine-organ.

The realization that artificial arms strong enough to walk on are not the major design point has led to the leg becoming the new driver for widespread realization of the technology. The hugely successful Flex-foot, made famous by double-amputee Oscar Pistorius, demonstrates that the material construction of the implant itself is not the limiting factor in design or performance. Properly securing a Flex-foot that is required to absorb and deliver Olympic forces requires several hours of assembly and fitting. It no doubt is also unbearable to wear it longer term, even when not under load. Now infamous for other reasons, Oscar (pictured right) did not have the ideal implant on hand when the time came to stand up to an intruder.

The prosthetic leg recently implanted in medical trials by the Royal National researchers was developed by Stanmore Implants. Itcalls its device the ITAP (Intraosseous Transcutaneous Amputation Prosthesis). The inspiration for it came from a curious paper published some time ago in Journal of Anatomy titled Natures answer to breaching the skin barrier. It describes the innovations used by mammals to create a strong and antiseptic bone-to-skin interface in other words, antlers. The researchers dissected the subcutaneous antler bone of red deer 20 of them actually and they found that they have highly porous geometry. This enables the surrounding soft tissue layers to grow directly into the bone where it can be stabilized.

Even the strongest soft-to-hard interface will eventually be compromised if it is not impervious to bacteria and viruses. As we know, skin breaches, even in the dry places likeunder your nails,are uniquely susceptible to infection. Interfaces that are moist, such as the gums or eyes, require extra accommodations and immune surveillance to keep them secure. By mimicking the antler construction, researchers were able to design implants that can form a tight seal with the surface and deeper level tissue and therefore keep infection out.

Read:Brown University creates first wireless, implanted brain-computer interface

Titanium implants that bond to bone typically have special coatings to increase surface area and adherence. One such surface treatment used is hydroxyapatite (HA), the main component of bone mineral itself. HA was shown to attract fibroblasts, the types of cells that manufacture the collagen which increases strength and elasticity in subdermal tissue. In the ITAP implant, a 40mm titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) pin is coated with HA on the bone-anchored region below the skin. Above the skin, the surface treatment transitions into a DLC coating (diamond-like coating) on the smooth external part that is polished to prevent bacterial colonization. For the exit wound point, a technique known as marsupialization (presumably after the skin pouch of marsupials) was used. Here a circular cut is made in the skin and the epidermal layer is bonded along the edges. Provided that the underlying fibroblast layer is intact, the epidermal cells of the skin surface will be prevented from migrating down around the implant shaft and compromising the integrity of the seal.

Stanmore Implants main line of business is making products for internal fixation of bone that has been compromised by injury or cancer. Itsexperience in designed devices that incorporate HA to control bone growth makes itwell-poised for the trans-skeletal (transhuman?) device market. In addition to the new ITAP implants, it hasalso developed an intriguing space-age method for elongating bone. The movie below shows how itsextendible prostheses implanted into long bones works. It usesan integral 12000:1 reduction drive that is electromagnetically lengthened by the remote force of an external rotating magnetic field, without the need for additional surgery or anesthetic.

Next page: Towards permanent bionic limbs, implants, and other transhumanist wonders

See the article here:
The future of permanent, fully integrated prosthetic limbs and bionic implants

Topeka U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts last week voted against a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit campaign expenditures by corporations. But Greg Orman, his independent challenger in this year’s election, said he would support such an amendment.

Roberts was among 42 Republican senators who voted Thursday against closing debate on Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment that would reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as “Citizens United.”

The court said in that case that limits on independent expenditures by corporations and other groups violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Our founding fathers knew that those in power would be inclined to retain it and, unless constrained, would use their power to punish those who would seek to challenge them or remove them from office, Roberts said in a speech to the Senate Sept. 8. The First Amendment denies us that power. It explicitly prohibits this Congress from passing laws that restrict the speech of the American people. With this amendment, the majority wants to try to remove that prohibition. They want to grant themselves the power to control speech to silence their opposition.

Orman, however, said he would support such an amendment as part of a broader package of campaign finance reform measures, including stricter limits on contributions from political action committees.

Current campaign finance laws are a perfect example of how both parties are focused on their personal or partisan benefit instead of the American public, Orman said in a statement released Monday. The lack of transparency allowed under Citizens United benefits Washingtons broken system at the expense of an informed electorate, and even more alarming is that the decision opens up the door for significant foreign influence in U.S. elections because donations can be made through any U.S. corporation.

The Citizens United case involved a conservative political group that wanted to air a film during the 2008 election cycle that was critical of Hillary Clinton, who was then a U.S. senator from New York seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The group also sought to buy advertising time to promote the movie, and to distribute it through video-on-demand cable services.

But the Federal Election Commission said that would have violated the campaign finance law in place at the time, a law known as the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited corporations and labor unions from making direct or independent expenditures in support or opposition to identifiable candidates.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the FEC, in favor of Citizens United, saying among other things that corporations are protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

The vote to end debate on the amendment failed on a straight party-line vote: 54 Democrats voted yes, while 42 Republicans, including both senators from Kansas, voted no. Three Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

See original here:
Senate candidates differ on overturning Citizens United ruling

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

Flex Your Rights! Cop Block, ID Refusal. Beavercreek OH.
Cops Screwing 10 of us around wasting our time because they don't agree with the first amendment right to canvass or go door to door to exercising our 1st amendment rights . They made up something…

By: M Mathieu

Continue reading here:
Flex Your Rights! Cop Block, ID Refusal. Beavercreek OH. – Video

Sep 132014


Editor’s note: Marcin Zaborowski is director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs and a member of the group of experts appointed by the NATO Secretary General to consider the alliance’s strategy in the run-up to the Newport summit. Follow him on Twitter @MaZaborowski. The views expressed in this commentary are solely the author’s.

(CNN) — The recent NATO summit in Newport, Wales was initially meant to prepare the alliance for the post-Afghanistan era and pooling of resources at the time of defense cuts, known in NATO lingua as “smart defense.”

However, as often happens, the summit agenda was hijacked by more current and dramatic developments: the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Russia’s push into Ukraine. Both these developments have reminded NATO that its core business — the defense of its member states — needs to be returned to the center of the alliance’s agenda.

Marcin Zaborowski

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and continued push into the south-east of Ukraine — a NATO partner country — has inevitably provoked fear amongst Ukraine’s neighbors, all of whom have relatively fresh memories of Russian domination.

These countries — Poland and the Baltic states in particular — made sure that the Ukrainian crisis would be at the center of the Newport agenda.

This happened in two ways. The Central East European allies asked for measures that would reassure them by confirming NATO’s engagement in the face of Russian aggression. In addition, the show of solidarity with Ukraine became a major focus of the summit, which was attended by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

The outcome of the Newport summit has met these allies’ expectations, at best, halfway.

NATO’s failure to send a clear signal to Russia by supporting Ukraine represents in itself a grave threat to the alliance’s Central East European members — who may be next on the list of potential Russian targets. Marcin Zaborowski

See the original post here:
Despite NATO Ukraine is still alone

WASHINGTON: The National Security Agency was unable to find evidence that leaker Edward Snowden ever raised concerns internally about its sweeping surveillance programs, after an exhaustive search that included deleted emails, court documents showed.

NSA Associate Director for Policy and Records David Sherman said that the agency had launched a “comprehensive” investigation after media reports were published about classified NSA spy programs based on information leaked by Snowden.

As part of last year’s probe, the NSA collected and searched Snowden’s “sent, received and deleted email,” including that “obtained by restoring back-up tapes” Sherman said in a sworn declaration filed yesterday.

“The search did not identify any email written by Mr Snowden in which he contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs.”

Searches for the emails included the records from the agency’s Office of General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General and Office of the Director of Compliance.

The findings contradict Snowden’s claim in an interview with NBC News in May that he did raise concerns through “internal channels” within the NSA and was told to “stop asking questions” before ultimately deciding to leak the secret files.

Sherman, who has worked with the NSA since 1985, has the authority to classify information as “top secret.”

The NSA made its declaration in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by VICE News against the NSA earlier this year.

The only relevant communication uncovered was a previously released email between Snowden and the Office of General Counsel inquiring about material in a training course he had completed.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said at the time that the exchange “poses a question about the relative authority of laws and executive orders — it does not register concerns about NSA’s intelligence activities.”

See the rest here:
Edward Snowden didn't raise concerns internally: National Security Agency


by: Ben Markton on January 07, 2014

Tor Browser is designed to provide an added layer of security when browsing the Internet on your mobile device. Using proxy technology to keep your IP address and location secure, the app taps into the Tor browsing interface that many journalists, hackers, and academics use to protect their privacy online. From our tests, the proxies appear to work well, but the actual browser has issues of its own.

While the browsing experience with Tor did protect privacy and ensure an anonymous browsing experience, the actual Web surfing experience was hurt because of it. The setup time is long, requiring about 30 seconds or so to connect and ready itself for use. After this, the browser will often take a bit longer than other browsers to load Web pages, sometimes as much as twice the time needed by Safari. Combined with the often overseas IP addresses opening non-U.S. versions of sites, it can be a bit frustrating to get to your favorite sites and access content.

The core component of Tor Browser works as advertised and offers a secure, private browsing experience, but the browser built around that technology is not quite good enough to replace the other browsers on your device, at least not for quick reads of articles, e-mail checking, and other basic activities. It’s an OK free app that could use some work on the usability side.

Follow this link:
Tor Browser for iOS – Free download and software reviews …

Travel to New York Visit NYC and the Liberty Island
Visit our page on Facebook A collection of songs while New York's pictures run on the screen. Now is the time Cimarosa (00:00) Floor 5 Cimarosa (06:22)…


Read the rest here:
Travel to New York Visit NYC and the Liberty Island – Video

Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time
Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time.

By: Adana Patnkja

Go here to read the rest:
Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time – Video

ILLUMINATY -WDWThis run may not be on par with some of our others, but stay tuned as we theory craft some more and push the time higher in future runs. Rewards List: 55 Rare 5 Fusion Cores…

By: Xela Dasi

See the article here:

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