NSA reportedly collaborated with Britain to steal cell phone codes

Published February 20, 2015

June 6, 2013: A sign stands outside the National Security Administration (NSA) campus in Fort Meade, Md.(AP)

Britains electronic spying agency, along with the NSA, reportedly hacked into the computer networks of a Dutch company to steal codes, which allowed both governments to spy on mobile phones worldwide.

The documents given to journalists by Edward Snowden did not offer details on how the agencies used the eavesdropping capabilities. However, it certainly shows how the NSA and Britains spy organization will push the limit of their surveillance prowess.

The company in question was the Netherlands-based SIM card giant Gemalto. Its SIM cards are used in mobile phones and credit cards. Its clients included AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint, The Intercept reported.

The Intercept did not reveal any evidence of eavesdropping against American customers. Company officials told the website they had no idea their networks were compromised.

Gemalto is also the leading maker of encryption systems for other business and industrial uses. The company makes smart key cards for businesses and government agencies to restrict access to sensitive material.

The British spies targeted Gemalto engineers around the world and stole encryption keys to allow them to decode the data that passes between cellphones and cell towers, The Intercept reported. The process allows them to acquired texts or emails out of the air.

At one point in June 2010, Britain's Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, as its signals intelligence agency is known, intercepted nearly 300,000 keys for mobile phone users in Somalia, The Intercept reported. "Somali providers are not on GCHQ's list of interest," the document noted, according to the Intercept. "(H)owever, this was usefully shared with NSA."

Earlier in 2010, GCHQ successfully intercepted keys used by wireless network providers in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, India, Serbia, Iceland and Tajikistan, according to the documents provided to The Intercept. But the agency noted trouble breaking into Pakistan networks.

Read more:

NSA reportedly collaborated with Britain to steal cell phone codes

Posted in NSA

Edward Snowden says he wishes he had leaked NSA documents sooner

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden says he wishes he had come forward sooner with documents exposing the agency's surveillance program.

In a Reddit ask-me-anything interview Monday, Snowden said that's the one thing he would do differently in 2013 when he revealed NSA practices.

"I would have come forward sooner," he said.

"Had I come forward a little sooner, these programs would have been a little less entrenched, and those abusing them would have felt a little less familiar with and accustomed to the exercise of those powers. This is something we see in almost every sector of government, not just in the national security space, but it's very important: Once you grant the government some new power or authority, it becomes exponentially more difficult to roll it back," he said.

"Don't let it happen in your country."

Snowden participated in the question-and-answer session with Laura Poitras, a journalist and director of CITIZENFOUR -- Sunday's Oscar winner for best documentary -- and Glenn Greenwald, a journalist who co-founded The Intercept with Poitras and journalist Jeremy Scahill.

At Sunday night's Academy Awards ceremony host Neil Patrick Harris made a dig at Snowden, using the pun "for some treason."

Snowden said he wasn't bothered by Harris' comment.

"To be honest, I laughed at NPH," he said. "I don't think it was meant as a political statement, but even if it was, that's not so bad. My perspective is if you're not willing to be called a few names to help out your country, you don't care enough."

Snowden then quoted 18th century politician Patrick Henry: "If this be treason, then let us make the most of it."

See the rest here:

Edward Snowden says he wishes he had leaked NSA documents sooner

Posted in NSA

Appeals court to hear sailor's case that pits military rules against 5th Amendment

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) Seaman Nancy L. Castillo was already in hot water with the Navy when she was busted near Bremerton, Wash., for suspected drunken driving.

What didnt happen next has now brought Castillos case all the way from Washingtons Kitsap County to the nations highest military court.

On Wednesday, in a dispute potentially important to myriad servicemembers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will consider whether the Navy can require sailors to self-report civilian criminal charges, despite the Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination.

The self-reporting requirement provides a real and appreciable danger of legal detriment, Castillos defense attorney, Navy Lt. Carrie E. Theis, argued in a brief, adding that it is reasonable for a service member to believe that disclosing would lead to incriminating evidence.

Theis, who declined to comment Tuesday, has some support for her argument, although in the end she may be going against the tide in a court respectful of military discipline.

In a 2009 case also involving an unreported drunken driving charge filed against an East Coast-based Navy enlisted man, a divided U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals concluded a self-reporting requirement covering alcohol arrests violated the Fifth Amendment.

The Navy-Marine Corps court noted that a self-reporting rule demands the revelation, directly or indirectly, of facts relating a service member to an offense. The higher-ranked U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces also struck down the rule concerning alcohol offenses, although not on constitutional grounds.

The appellate court could also on Wednesday try to resolve Castillos case without digging deep into the Fifth Amendment.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi, issued new regulations in July 2010. Sailors must now report the basic civilian charges, but not all the factual details. For doing so, they receive Navy immunity unless military investigators independently obtain evidence.

Arrest records are not covered by the Fifth Amendment privilege, Marine Corps Capt. Matthew H. Harris wrote in a brief for the Navy, adding that the fact that (Castillo) was arrested and charged, by itself, could never form the basis for prosecution against her.

Read more:

Appeals court to hear sailor's case that pits military rules against 5th Amendment

Drew Clark: Threats to cloud computing require a solution from the 18th century

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution articulates the right of Americans sources of private informational documents to be secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures." We need this principle to address threats to cloud computing.

Alena Root, Thinkstock

Enlarge photo

SALT LAKE CITY As a medium of expression that blossomed in popular consciousness in the late 1990s, the Internet is beginning to reach its adolescent years.

We've evolved from static Web pages to social networking to "cloud computing," which means that personal documents aren't stored on our computers and smartphones but on servers throughout the world.

And yet citizens' security in their digital possessions has never been more threatened. Fortunately, there are two bills one co-sponsored by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the other co-sponsored by Utah Sen. Mike Lee that go a long way to restoring constitutional protections for Internet information.

It's important at the outset to dispense the shibboleth that the Internet changes everything. What the Internet needs is a strong dose of 18th century legal wisdom, not words about "freedom of expression in the 21st century," to quote the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission during last Thursday's vote by the agency on network neutrality.

The Constitution says that we have the right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers and effects." We have the right to speak free from regulation by the government. There are some who say that the Internet has rewritten the laws of supply and demand, or changed common decency and morality, or altered the possibility of being free from police surveillance. They are mistaken.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution articulates the right of Americans sources of private informational documents to be secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures." This doesn't prevent the government or the police from obtaining information upon probable cause or reasonable suspicion; it simply bars the issuance of general warrants.

On Feb. 4, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives introduced the Electronic Communications Privacy Amendments Act of 2015. The bill we are introducing today protects Americans digital privacy in their emails, and all the other files and photographs they store in the cloud," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, who has long been seeking to update this law that first passed in 1986.

Go here to see the original:

Drew Clark: Threats to cloud computing require a solution from the 18th century

DOJ report says Ferguson PD routinely violated rights of African-Americans

The Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of the local African-American population in the Missouri city for years, the Department of Justice has found in a searing report.

The investigation, launched after the August shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, found that the department violated the Fourth Amendment in instances such as making traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause.

The report provides direct evidence of racial bias among police officers and court workers, and details a criminal justice system that through the issuance of petty citations for infractions such as walking in the middle of the street, prioritizes generating revenue from fines over public safety.

The practice hits poor people especially hard, sometimes leading to jail time when they can't pay, the report says, and has contributed to a cynicism about the police on the part of citizens.

The official release of the report could come as early as Wednesday. The details were provided to Fox News on Tuesday by law enforcement officials familiar with the department's findings.

The Justice Department alleges that the discrimination was triggered at least partly by racial bias and stereotypes about African-Americans, a violation of the 14th Amendment. The report details a November 2008 email on an official Ferguson municipal account which joked that President Obama would not be president for long because what black man holds a steady job for four years?

From 2012 to 2014, the report found, African-Americans comprised 85 percent of people pulled over for a traffic stop; 90 percent of those given citations; and 93 percent of arrests.

Also, African-American drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white drivers, but that those black drivers were 26 percent less likely to be found to be holding contraband.

The report also accuses the Ferguson police of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that 88 percent of those cases involved African-Americans.

Overall, blacks make up 67 percent of Ferguson's population.

View post:

DOJ report says Ferguson PD routinely violated rights of African-Americans

Officials: DOJ report finds racial bias in Ferguson police

The Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of the local African-American population in the Missouri city for years, the Department of Justice has found in a searing report.

The investigation, launched after the August shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, found that the department violated the Fourth Amendment in instances such as making traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause.

The report provides direct evidence of racial bias among police officers and court workers, and details a criminal justice system that through the issuance of petty citations for infractions such as walking in the middle of the street, prioritizes generating revenue from fines over public safety.

The practice hits poor people especially hard, sometimes leading to jail time when they can't pay, the report says, and has contributed to a cynicism about the police on the part of citizens.

The official release of the report could come as early as Wednesday. The details were provided to Fox News on Tuesday by law enforcement officials familiar with the department's findings.

The Justice Department alleges that the discrimination was triggered at least partly by racial bias and stereotypes about African-Americans, a violation of the 14th Amendment. The report details a November 2008 email on an official Ferguson municipal account which joked that President Obama would not be president for long because what black man holds a steady job for four years?

From 2012 to 2014, the report found, African-Americans comprised 85 percent of people pulled over for a traffic stop; 90 percent of those given citations; and 93 percent of arrests.

Also, African-American drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white drivers, but that those black drivers were 26 percent less likely to be found to be holding contraband.

The report also accuses the Ferguson police of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that 88 percent of those cases involved African-Americans.

Overall, blacks make up 67 percent of Ferguson's population.

Excerpt from:

Officials: DOJ report finds racial bias in Ferguson police

Man convicted of misdemeanor 25 years ago has Second Amendment rights restored

Published February 19, 2015

A man convicted 25 years ago in Maryland on a misdemeanor charge for carrying a firearm without a license will see his Second Amendment rights restored, under a new federal court ruling issued Wednesday.

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive director of the Washington-based The Second Amendment Foundation, which represented Julio Suarez, called the ruling significant.

Under existing federal law many people convicted of non-violent state-level misdemeanors have lost their Second Amendment rights because theyve been lumped together with convicted felons due to indeterminate sentencing laws, Gottlieb said.

Thats not right, and cases like this help restore some perspective and narrow some broad legislative brush strokes.

The case provides a building block on which similar cases can be challenged, Gottlieb said.

Suarez, originally pulled over by police in 1990 on a suspected DUI charge, was convicted instead of possessing a firearm without a permit and sentenced to 180 days in prison, 1 year probation and a $500 fine. Court records show the terms of imprisonment and fine were both suspended.

The father of three, who has been married for 20 years and is an active member of his local church, has since led an exemplary life, Gottlieb said, but he noted the conviction was enough to cost Suarez his ability to buy and keep a firearm for defense of his home and family.

In a 26-page decision, Middle District Court Judge William W. Caldwell said Suarez is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society.

A person should not lose his or her constitutional rights for non-violent indiscretions that occur once in a lifetime, said Second Amendment Foundation Attorney Alan Gura, who represented Suarez.

Read the original here:

Man convicted of misdemeanor 25 years ago has Second Amendment rights restored

Second Amendment activists gather at South Carolina Statehouse rally in midst of domestic violence debate

About 100 Second Amendment activists gathered at the Statehouse on Saturday to push for gun rights in the midst of the General Assemblys debate over taking guns from convicted abusers. Thad Moore/The Post and Courier

COLUMBIA Second Amendment activists rallied Saturday at the Statehouse, three days after the Senate voted to bar anyone convicted of a high-level domestic violence crime from possessing guns.

About 100 people gathered outside the capitol holding signs, flags warning Dont Tread on Me and even a pitchfork. The rally was planned before the Senate took up the domestic violence bill, organizers said. But, for some, the passage of the gun ban underscored why they were holding the rally.

Our timing couldnt be better, said Andrew Miller, state coordinator of Gun Rights Across America, which organized the rally.

Sen. Lee Bright, a Spartanburg Republican who was one of three Upstate senators who voted against the domestic violence bill, attended the rally along with three other lawmakers.

When it comes right down to it, weve got to fix this house, Bright told the crowd, gesturing to the Statehouse behind him. Weve got problems in South Carolina.

The gun ban was hotly contested during Senate debate, and was passed only after a compromise was reached that requires a judges approval to take away firearms in the least serious domestic violence crimes. The measure still needs to pass the House, where the bill does not include a gun ban.

Federal law already barred anyone convicted of domestic violence from possessing a gun, but victims advocates argued that a state ban was needed to enforce the law.

Bright called the gun ban an assault on the Second Amendment, but not all those who rallied to defend gun rights disagreed with taking guns away from abusers. A February poll found that 76 percent of South Carolinians would support a law that kept convicted batterers from acquiring guns.

Read the original post:

Second Amendment activists gather at South Carolina Statehouse rally in midst of domestic violence debate

Obama AR-15 ammunition ban targeted in gun group's nationwide media campaign

The Second Amendment Foundation will launch a nationwide TV and radio campaign Monday aimed at exposing legal holes in President Obamas executive actions to ban ammunition commonly used in AR-15 sport utility rifles.

We bought $700,000 of time on Fox News and Glenn Becks Blaze network, Alan Gottlieb, the groups founder and executive vice president, told The Washington Times in a Sunday telephone interview. Its aimed at getting our legal argument out to the public, and at getting support for a possible lawsuit.

The foundations one-minute commercial heralds 1 million Americans to call a toll-free number to voice their concerns, make a contribution and target Mr. Obama for exercising another executive power grab.

PHOTOS: Awesome rifles: The best and the baddest

The ad claims, The Obama administration was unable to impose gun restrictions and confiscation through the legislative process, so now its trying to ban commonly used ammunition through regulation. If we allow Obama to ban ammunition through executive fiat now, it will lead to the loss of our Second Amendment rights by the time Obama leaves office.

Press secretary Josh Earnest said last week that Mr. Obama supports the ban because he predicts that the AR-15s .223 caliber M855 ammunition will be used to pierce law enforcement officer armor, although there are no such reported cases to date.

The Second Amendment Foundations media campaign is being launched only days after it sent a scathing legal threat to B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In addition, 239 congressional lawmakers, including seven Democrats, dispatched a letter voicing their own concerns to the federal agency.

PHOTOS: Bang for your buck: Best handguns under $500

The proposed regulations, which ban the production and sale of the steel-tipped ammunition was a response to an ATF report that claims new handguns are capable of firing the ammunition. But the new AR-15 handguns are nearly 2 feet long, and weigh about 6 pounds, making them almost impossible to conceal like a traditional handgun.

The administrations logic does not satisfy the requirements under federal law to classify the ammunition as armor piercing, the foundation argues.

Read more:

Obama AR-15 ammunition ban targeted in gun group's nationwide media campaign

Second amendment advocates talk 'open carry' at Freedom Friday rally

It was a very windy day at the State Capitol but "Freedom Friday" still drew a crowd.

"We are here because we are sick and tired of our leaders, the ones in the pink dome behind me ignoring the wishes of the people of Texas," said organizer Doc Greene.

Some of the attendees were there to support secession from the Union, others are hoping to -- as one man's sign said -- "seal the border."

Organizer Doc Greene, host of an internet show on ragingelephantsradio.com says the rally was about more than just the second amendment but that doesn't mean open carry wasn't a hot topic. He's pleased the governor is on board -- but wishes it was constitutional carry or unlicensed open carry Abbott signs into law.

"If he signs licensed open carry and a lot of people think that's what we're going to get, it's better than what we had. But it's not going far enough," Greene said.

The Senate version of the open carry bill is headed for the Senate floor for discussion. Democratic House Representative Garnet Coleman who is hoping to repeal the "Stand Your Ground" law is also not a fan of open carry.

"I do believe that if certain individuals start carrying weapons and it creates fear in communities, others will start carrying weapons if they feel threatened by individuals walking around with guns," Coleman said.

Also among the speakers at Freedom Friday, Christine Weick. She's the one that grabbed the mic at Muslim Capitol Day last month. Here's why she did it.

"Millions of immigrants have come into this country and have acclimated to the laws. They have been good enough for all these generations. Why now a race of people that come in with this religion that says that we are not good enough, we now want something else," Weick said.

Saturday brings another gun rights event at the Capitol, the Guns Across America 3 Rally.

Go here to see the original:

Second amendment advocates talk 'open carry' at Freedom Friday rally

The First Amendment as we know it today didnt exist until the 60s

Reading the First Amendment isnt easy. Consider the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither the Words nor the History Helps Much

The words themselves arent much help. Reading the first word, Congress, literally would leave the president, the military, fifty governors, and your local cops free to ignore our most important set of constitutional protections. Reading the fourth and fifth words, no law, literally would wind up protecting horrible verbal assaults like threats, fraud, extortion, and blackmail. The three most important words in the First Amendmentthe freedom of the words that introduce, modify, and describe the crucial protections of speech, press, and assembly, simply cannot be read literally. The phrase the freedom of is a legal concept that has no intrinsic meaning. Someone must decide what should or should not be placed within the protective legal cocoon. Finally, the majestic abstractions in the First Amendment, like establishment of religion, free exercise thereof, peaceful assembly, and petition for a redress of grievances do not carry a single literal meaning. In the end, each of the abstractions protects only the behavior we think it should protect.

So much for the literal text.

History (or whats sometimes called originalism these days) is even worse as a firm guide to reading the First Amendment. The truth is that the First Amendment as we know it today didnt exist before Justice William Brennan Jr. and the rest of the Warren Court invented it in the 1960s. In fact, history turns out to be the worst place to look for a robust First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson thought free speech was a pretty good idea, but the ink wasnt dry on the First Amendment before President Adams locked up seventeen of the twenty newspaper editors who opposed his reelection in 1800. One of the jailed editors was Benjamin Franklins nephew Benjamin Franklin Bache. He died in jail. Despite the newly enacted First Amendment, not only did the federal courts remain silent in the face of Adamss massive exercise in government censorship; they often initiated the prosecutions. Matthew Lyon, Vermonts only Jeffersonian member of Congress, was jailed for four months and fined $1,000 for criticizing the president in his newspaper. Lyon had the last word, though. He was released just in time to cast Vermonts swing vote for Thomas Jefferson when the presidential election of 1800 was thrown into the House, helping to seal Adamss defeat.

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were free-speech disasters. Before the Civil War, antislavery newspapers were torched throughout the North. All criticism of slavery was banned in the South. Slaves were even forbidden to learn to read. During the Civil War, President Lincoln held opponents of the war in military custody for speaking out against it. After the Civil War, labor leaders went to jail in droves for picketing and striking for higher wages. Labor unions were treated as unlawful conspiracies. Radical opponents of World War I were sentenced to ten-year prison terms and eventually deported to the Soviet Unionfor leafleting. In 1920, Eugene Debs polled more than one million votes for president from his prison cell in the Atlanta federal penitentiary, where he was serving a ten-year jail term for giving a speech in 1917 praising draft resisters. Released in 1921, Debs, his health broken, was banned from voting or running for office; he died in 1926. After World War II, fear of communism translated into jail or deportation for thousands of political radicals guilty of saying the wrong thing or joining the wrong group, culminating in 1951 with the Supreme Courts affirmance of multiyear jail terms for the leadership of the American Communist Party, despite its status as a lawful political party.

So much for history, unless you want to erase the First Amendment.

* * *

A Tale of Two Readings

View post:

The First Amendment as we know it today didnt exist until the 60s

Obamas First Amendment assault

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.

Go here to read the rest:

Obamas First Amendment assault

Ohio newspaper gets $18,000 from government for deleted photos

TOLEDO, Ohio (Tribune News Service) In what was seen as a victory for First Amendment rights, the U.S. government agreed Thursday to pay The Blade $18,000 for seizing the cameras of a photographer and deleting photographs taken outside the Lima tank plant last year.

In turn, The Blade agreed to dismiss the lawsuit it filed April 4 in U.S. District Court on behalf of photographer Jetta Fraser and reporter Tyrel Linkhorn against Charles T. Hagel, then the U.S. Secretary of Defense; Lt. Col. Matthew Hodge, commandant of the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, and the military police officers involved in the March 28, 2014, incident.

Fritz Byers, attorney for The Blade, said the settlement was made under the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits the government, in connection with the investigation of a criminal offense, from searching or seizing any work product materials possessed by a journalist.

The harassment and detention of The Blades reporter and photographer, the confiscation of their equipment, and the brazen destruction of lawful photographs cannot be justified by a claim of military authority or by the supposed imperatives of the national security state, Mr. Byers said.

The Blade is pleased with this resolution of the crucial First Amendment issues at stake in this matter, Mr. Byers said.

John Robinson Block, publisher and editor-in-chief of The Blade, said he was "very happy it's resolved," but wished the government would admit wrongdoing.

"We appear to know more about the U.S. Constitution than responsible federal defense officials. I wish they could admit in this instance, in any instance, that they were wrong and violated our rights."

Blade officials said $5,000 of the settlement would be donated to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Based in Arlington, Va., the committee works to protect journalists free speech rights as well as access to public records, meetings, and courtrooms.

The remainder of the settlement will be shared by the Blade staff members detained, and will not be used to pay the newspapers legal fees.

The First Amendment Privacy Protection Act allows those who sue under it to recover a minimum of $1,000 per violation or actual monetary losses.

Here is the original post:

Ohio newspaper gets $18,000 from government for deleted photos

National Broadcasting Association to Honor Nexstar's Perry Sook

WASHINGTON, DC - Perry Sook, president and CEO of Nexstar Broadcasting, KARK's parent company, will be honored next month by the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA).

Sook will be honored with the First Amendment Service Award at the 25th annual First Amendment Awards coming up on March 11 in the nation's capital.

The First Amendment Service Award honors professionals in local or network news who work in an off-air, management, largely behind-the-scenes capacity.

Sook successfully built Nexstar Broadcasting from two dozen stations to more than 100, while building and improving news operations across the ever-expanding group.

He founded Nexstar in 1996 for the purpose of acquiring and operating network affiliated television stations in medium-sized markets. Today, the company's stations, websites and partners reach 58 markets or approximately 18.0% of all U.S. television households. Prior to Nexstar, Sook was one of the principals of Superior Communication Group, Inc., which was sold in 1995 to Sinclair Broadcast Group. Before Superior, Sook was President/CEO of Seaway Communication, Inc., owner of network affiliated stations in Bangor, ME and Wausau, WI.

Before being recruited to run Seaway, he worked in the television industry as a General Sales Manager, acting General Manager and National Sales Manager. Sook previously spent five years with Cox Broadcasting, first in local sales in Pittsburgh then at Telerep, Inc., as a National Account Executive. Early in his career, Sook was involved in local TV sales and radio sales. Sook also worked briefly as a television news anchor at the CBS affiliate in Clarksburg, WV.

Sook did his undergraduate work at Ohio University in Athens, OH and was an adjunct professor at Edinboro State University of Pennsylvania. He is a recipient of the NAB/BEA Harold E. Follow Memorial Scholarship, a Board Member of the National Association of Broadcasters, the Television Bureau of Advertising, the NBC Affiliate Board, and a Board Member and Trustee of The Ohio University Foundation.

Original post:

National Broadcasting Association to Honor Nexstar's Perry Sook

InnocentCryptoKitty 047 English Espaol Philosophy Meditation SciFi Fantasy Space Bitcoin Music EEV – Video


InnocentCryptoKitty 047 English Espaol Philosophy Meditation SciFi Fantasy Space Bitcoin Music EEV
http://www.twitter.com/VanosEnigmA http://www.facebook.com/VanosEnigma http://www.twitter.com/CryptoEEV Thank you mucho meow for your donation: Bitcoin Address: 1FJ9ZZcnKqhiiYWNh...

By: VanosEnigmA Enigmaisland

Read this article:

InnocentCryptoKitty 047 English Espaol Philosophy Meditation SciFi Fantasy Space Bitcoin Music EEV - Video

SoulConfiscator 002 PerdiendoElNorte InnerEarth Conspiracy Vril Ufo MindControl AI SciFi Bitcoin EEV – Video


SoulConfiscator 002 PerdiendoElNorte InnerEarth Conspiracy Vril Ufo MindControl AI SciFi Bitcoin EEV
http://www.twitter.com/VanosEnigmA http://www.facebook.com/VanosEnigma http://www.twitter.com/CryptoEEV Thank you mucho meow for your donation: Bitcoin Address: 1FJ9ZZcnKqhiiYWNh...

By: VanosEnigmA Enigmaisland

Read more:

SoulConfiscator 002 PerdiendoElNorte InnerEarth Conspiracy Vril Ufo MindControl AI SciFi Bitcoin EEV - Video

Bitcoin Rush-38 w/ OrbitCoin, UToken, Fidor Bank, Bill Cassidy, TheOpenMinute – Video


Bitcoin Rush-38 w/ OrbitCoin, UToken, Fidor Bank, Bill Cassidy, TheOpenMinute
OrbitCoin: http://orb.sx Block Explorer / Crawler http://atlas.phoenixcoin.org:1080 UToken: http://twitter.com/utokendealer http://www.utokendealers.com FidorBank: http://fidor.de Bill Cassidy:...

By: World Crypto Network

View post:

Bitcoin Rush-38 w/ OrbitCoin, UToken, Fidor Bank, Bill Cassidy, TheOpenMinute - Video