8 March International Womens Day: NATO celebrates women in defence and security
Short video clip highlighting the essential role of women in defence and security from high level decision making to serving in the armed forces.
By: NATO
Read the original here:
8 March International Womens Day: NATO celebrates women in defence and security - Video
At NATOs Allied Land Command on Thursday, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. John Nicholson was overseeing what only a year ago could have been viewed as just a mundane classroom training exercise.
Nicholson and his command team in Izmir, Turkey, were busy getting a group of military members ready to head out into the field. Not to conduct war games themselves, but to observe alliance armies that were being put to the test.
Our evaluators have to be trained, and thats what were doing this week, Nicholson said in a telephone interview with Stars and Stripes.
But today, such training occurs as NATO is shifting from a decade fighting a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan to confronting security concerns in Europes own backyard, a notion that only a year ago might have been viewed as throwback to the Cold War.
Now, Russian aggression in Ukraine and concerns along NATOs southern flank, where the rise of the Islamic State has parts of Europe on edge, has revitalized the alliance. For NATO Land Command, that means getting the alliances ground forces to work effectively together to respond to any threat or crisis, Nicholson said.
The political guidance has lined up. The military structure is lined up, and the focus and energy is all lined up, Nicholson said. These threats to the stability of the world around us, especially to the east and the south, have clearly energized the political and military leadership of the alliance to enact these improvements to readiness and responsiveness of the alliance.
From Greece and Spain to Turkey and Germany, NATOs Land Command will be spending much of the year dispatching teams of combat evaluators to test the readiness of the alliances ground fighters.
In Izmir this week, NATO military personnel from across the 28-nation alliance have been busy learning skills needed to measure the effectiveness of alliance armies.
A key challenge for the militaries is overcoming communication barriers, Nicholson said difficulties that are less about language and more about technology.
One of the biggest challenge areas is our command-and-control systems and our ability to talk to one another, and this remains a challenge, he said.
See the original post here:
LONDON, Feb. 20 (UPI) -- A senior NATO military officer warned that Russia could invade the Baltic States with tactics practiced in Ukraine.
In a London speech to the Royal United Services Institute, British Gen. Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Deputy Supreme Commander of NATO forces, cited a "danger that Russia might believe that the large-scale conventional forces which she has shown she can generate on very short notice, as we saw in the snap exercise that preceded the takeover of Crimea, could in the future be used not only for intimidation and coercion but potentially to seize NATO territory."
He referred to the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, NATO-member countries which border Russia and were part of the Soviet Union.
Bradshaw's comments came the same day Valdis Dombrovskis, European Commission Vice president and former Latvia Prime Minister, called for a stronger NATO presence in the Baltic countries.
"Russia's aggression against Ukraine is very worrying for Baltic states. It shows that Russia is looking to redraw Europe's 21st century borders by force, and it must be noted that Ukraine is not the first country to face Russia's aggression," Dombrovskis said in London.
The unusually strong warnings came a day after British defense minister Michael Fallon called Russian President Vladimir Putin "a real and present danger" to NATO and to the Baltic states, and two days after British fighter jets intercepted Russian bombers flying near British airspace.
Britain's House of Lords committee overseeing European Union relations issued a report Friday accusing the EU and the British government of a "catastrophic misreading" of Russia's intentions for Ukraine, saying Britain was not "active or visible enough" to dissuade the Kremlin from its involvement in Ukraine.
Related UPI Stories
2015 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.
Popular Photos
Original post:
A snap exercise in Russia's eastern military district later the same year was meanwhile the largest since the fall of the Iron Curtain it involved 160,000 troops.
Russia could potentially seize territory in a Nato state using its rapidly assembled forces for example, the Russian-speaking enclave of Narva in Estonia before the alliance had time to swing into action, forcing leaders to either declare war or swallow their pride.
Such a course of action would raise the prospect of a "slide into strategic conflict", which, "however unlikely we see that as being now, represents an obvious existential threat to our whole being", Sir Adrian added, hinting at the potential for nuclear confrontation.
Read MoreRussia sanctions over Ukraine fighting seen as 'symbolic' by experts
The prospect of a brazen Russian attack is one of the key drivers behind Nato moves to speed up its ability to deploy sizeable military units in the event of a crisis. The centrepiece of the alliance's shift in policy following a summit in Wales in September is a "spearhead" brigade-sized rapid-reaction force capable of deploying within 48 hours.
Nato is preparing to deploy "force integration units" in each of its eastern European member states. They will act as eyes and ears on the ground as well as preparing the way for the rapid deployment of Nato forces should they be required by building links and logistical plans with local military units and commands.
Read the rest here:
KABUL, Afghanistan A suicide attack struck a NATO coalition convoy in downtown Kabul Thursday morning, killing two people.
At about 8:30 a.m. a suicide bomber in a Toyota Corolla attacked two vehicles belonging to Turkish members of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission, said Kabul police spokesman Hashmat Stanikzai.
The blast killed at least one Turkish individual and one Afghan civilian bystander, as well as the attacker, he said. The Associated Press, citing the Turkish military, reported that one Turkish soldier was killed and another was wounded in the attack.
Coalition officials confirmed that it was one of their convoys but did not release any information on casualties.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack in an online post.
The purpose of today's attack in Kabul was a U.S. convoy, the embassy or any other country nationals were not objective, the groups spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, wrote on Twitter.
The recently appointed NATO civilian representative to Afghanistan, Ismail Aramaz, who is Turkish, had been reported to be the target of the attack. But NATO spokesman Chris Chambers told Stars and Stripes that Aramaz was at his residence, not in the vehicles, at the time of the blast.
The attack occurred deep in the heart of Kabul in an area that hosts the embassies of Turkey and Iran, among other government buildings.
smith.josh@stripes.com Twitter: @joshjonsmith
See original here:
The NSA and GCHQ probably hacked SIM card maker Gemalto, but didn't nab any encryption keys, the firm said.
SIM card maker Gemalto today said it believes the NSA and GCHQ did indeed breach its systems, but the firm found that the agencies were unable to swipe any encryption keys.
The news comes after a recent report, based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, said that the NSA and its U.K. counterpart hacked Gemalto in order to steal encryption keys and spy on wireless communications.
A multinational chipmaker based in The Netherlands, Gemalto supplies SIM cards used by all four of the top U.S. carriers and 450 wireless network providers around the world. Access by intelligence agencies, therefore, would allow the monitoring of mobile communications without approval, warrant, or wiretap.
Gemalto's subsequent investigation found that the agencies' "intrusions only affected the outer parts of our networksour office networks," Gemalto said. SIM encryption keys and customer data is stored on other networks.
The Dutch tech giant said its networks are frequently under attack, but that very few efforts actually succeed. Two sophisticated attacks in 2010 and 2011, however, caught Gemalto's eye and "could be related" to the reported NSA and GCHQ breaches.
One of those attacks focused on suspicious activity on one of its French sites, while another involved fake emails sent to mobile operator customers. At the same time, Gemalto detected numerous attempts to access the employees' PCs.
Though unable to identify the intruders at the time, the company now believes the NSA and GCHQ were behind the breaches. "An operation by NSA and GCHQ probably happened," it said.
"It is important to understand that our network architecture is designed like a cross between an onion and an orange," the report said. "It has multiple layers and segments which help to cluster and isolate data."
The breach was allegedly detailed in a "secret" 2010 GCHQ document, but was only just made public via the Snowden data dump.
Read the original here:
Gemalto: Spy Agencies 'Probably' Hacked Us, But Encryption Keys Secure
By Bill Gertz
Washington Free Beacon
FILE: An aerial view of the NSA's Utah Data Center in Bluffdale, Utah.(AP)
The National Security Agency, still reeling from massive leaks caused by Edward Snowden, is preparing to be hit with another major loss of secrets, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The leaks are expected to be published in the near future by a news outlet that was not further identified by the officials familiar with details of the compromise, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
The NSA is aware of the news outlets forthcoming disclosures and is taking steps to try and minimize any damage they will cause.
According to the officials, the latest NSA disclosure of secrets is not the result of an insider stealing documents, as occurred in the case of fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Instead, the leaks will reveal certain NSA technical cyber intelligence gathering capabilities. The officials did not provide details about the leaks.
Click for more from The Washington Beacon.
Continued here:
Summary:The former NSA contractor turned whistleblower said during a Reddit question-and-answer session that the leaks have also improved security and encryption in Silicon Valley.
Edward Snowden answers questions on Reddit (Image: Imgur/Reddit)
Edward Snowden has just one regret.
It's not that he threw Obama's second term in office under the bus by disclosing the vast surveillance by the National Security Agency. Nor did he regret that he condemned himself to the bowels of Russia. (He rightfully pointed out the weather in Moscow has been "warmer than the east coast" this past week, where temperatures have been close to zero.)
It was that he didn't "come forward sooner" with what he knew.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras, and former NSA contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden answered questions from the Reddit community on Monday in an hour-long "ask me anything."
The question-and-answer session comes hours before the Poitras documentary, "Citizenfour," broadcasts on HBO. The film, which documents the first few days the whistleblower goes on the run in Hong Kong and the immediate aftermath of the leaks, won an Oscar on Sunday for best documentary feature.
Here are select highlights from the event, edited for clarity:
Snowden, months after he was granted political asylum in Russia, asked the country's president Vladimir Putin if his government spies on its citizens. What proof do we have that Putin is being honest?
Snowden: "There's not, and that's part of the problem world-wide. We can't just reform the laws in one country, wipe our hands, and call it a day. We have to ensure that our rights aren't just being protected by letters on a sheet of paper somewhere, or those protections will evaporate the minute our communications get routed across a border. The only way to ensure the human rights of citizens around the world are being respected in the digital realm is to enforce them through systems and standards rather than policies and procedures."
See the rest here:
WASHINGTON Machinists Mate Fireman 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 service members, 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:
Kelly Clarkson is hardly shy when it comes to how candid she'll get in an interview. So when she sat down on Thursday night's Watch What Happens Live, with a glass of wine, the "Heartbeat Song" singer was characteristically real.
She and host Andy Cohen shared a few laughs during a game of "Plead the Fifth" on the late-night Bravo talk show. Needless to say, Clarkson didn't use her Fifth Amendment rights during the conversation.
Kelly Clarkson's Response After Online Bullying? 'I'm Awesome!'
Cohen first asked the singer about her 2013 tweet during which she referred to "#pitchystrippers" during that year's VMAs.
"I never said Miley Cyrus. The fact that I tweeted 'pitchy stripper' and people said Miley Cyrus is not my problem," she said. "I'm just saying. I never said Miley Cyrus, my man. Everyone else said Miley Cyrus. I'm not saying who it was."
Kelly Clarkson Q&A: The Pop Superstar on 'Piece By Piece,' Recording While Pregnant & Bringing a Crib on Her Tour Bus
Additionally, Clarkson was open about her past dating fellow season one American Idol contestant Justin Guarini, who first confirmed their past as a couple last year.
"We didn't date during Idol," Clarkson clarified. "We did date. I feel like we weren't dating through the movie [From Justin to Kelly]. We did date a little bit. I think any two people who were thrown together that much... guy, girl, you put 'Timeless,' that song from From Justin to Kelly, you can't fight it!"
Continued here:
Kelly Clarkson Dishes on Justin Guarini, Miley Cyrus on 'Watch What Happens Live'
San Francisco, CA - infoZine - EFF is asking the Supreme Court to hear arguments in Raynor v. State of Maryland, a case that examines whether police should be allowed to collect and analyze "inadvertently shed" DNA without a warrant or consent, such as swabbing cells from a drinking glass or a chair. EFF argues that genetic material contains a vast amount of personal information that should receive the full protection of the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"As human beings, we shed hundreds of thousands of skin and hair cells daily, with each cell containing information about who we are, where we come from, and who we will be," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch said. "The court must recognize that allowing police the limitless ability to collect and search genetic material will usher in a future where DNA may be collected from any person at any time, entered into and checked against DNA databases, and used to conduct pervasive surveillance."
The sophistication and speed of DNA analysis technology is advancing exponentially as the costs of the technology drop. These advances, EFF argues, raise significant questions for privacy and civil liberties. DNA can reveal sensitive personal health information and can allow police to identify a person's relatives, turning family members into inadvertent "genetic informants" on each other. Some researchers have also postulated that DNA can determine race, sexual orientation, intelligence, and even political predispositions.
"Law enforcement should not be able to amass giant databases of genetic material they find lying around," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury said. "The Supreme Court should review this case and consider it within the context of emerging technologies that could significantly affect the privacy rights of every American."
Follow this link:
Published February 23, 2015
A flurry of firearm and Second Amendment-related bills introduced in the Nevada legislature have already generated plenty of controversy, according to The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
This could be the year of the gun, as Republicans, who are in the majority in the Legislature for the first time in decades, see a chance to enact Second Amendment measures supported by many of their constituents.
At least nine bills directly relating to firearms have either been introduced or are being drafted. And there are related measures, including a bill that would extend justifiable homicide to carjacking situations, and another that would allow foster parents who are in law enforcement or who have concealed weapons permits to carry loaded firearms.
First there was a dust-up between Senate Democrats and Republicans over a GOP-backed gun measure that includes domestic violence provisions that Democrats said fell short of what is needed.
Then Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, generated some controversy over comments she made in a New York Times story about her bill to allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry their weapons on college campuses.
If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them, she said.
To read more from The Review-Journal click here:
Follow this link:
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun gunsan "electrical weapon" under the statutedoes not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decisionsays(PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns arenot suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.
Nevertheless, we note that stun guns deliver a charge of up to 50,000 volts. They are designed to incapacitate a target by causing disabling pain, uncontrolled muscular contractions, and general disruption of the central nervous system.... It is difficult to detect clear signs of use and misuse of stun guns, unlike handguns. Stun guns can deliver repeated or prolonged shocks without leaving marks. ...The Legislature rationally could ban their use in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare. Removing from public access devices that can incapacitate, injure, or kill a person by disrupting the central nervous system with minimal detection is a classic legislative basis supporting rationality. It is immaterial that the Legislature has not banned weapons that are more lethal. Mathematical precision by the Legislature is not constitutionally required.
The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
Moreover, although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention. Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military. Indeed, the record indicates "they are ineffective for . . . hunting or target shooting." Because the stun gun that the defendant possessed is both dangerous per se at common law and unusual, but was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, we conclude that stun guns fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment.
The decision, the most recent analysis of the Second Amendment by any top court, comes as all types of and manner of weapons are being constructed at home via 3D printing technology. The latest showdown about those weapons surfaced last month, when FedEx refused to ship a box that makes homemade metal semi-automatic rifles.
The Massachusetts case, decided last week, concernedJaime Caetano, who lives in one of five states making it illegal for private citizens to posses stun guns. She appealed her 2013 conviction, on Second Amendment and self-defense grounds, claiming she had a right to the weapon to protect herself from what she said was an abusive father of her children. The penalty for breaching the law carries up to a 2.5-year maximum jail term. She was caught with the device outside a grocery store after allowing the authorities, who were looking for a shoplifter, to search her purse.
The law in question, the court said, forbids the private possession of a"portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill" except by specified public officers or suppliers of such devices, if possession is "necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon" to agencies utilizing it.
In2008, the US Supreme Court, in a decision known as Heller(PDF), overturned a District of Columbia statute and ruled that a banon handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Now, every state allows people to carry weapons of sorts, some with or without permits.
The Massachusetts top court concluded that the woman could have applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, like a handgun instead.
Original post:
You have the right to bear arms, not electrical arms, court declares
Senators approved a bill Friday that could make West Virginia the sixth state to allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
After reading aloud from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, senators voted 32-2 for a bill (SB347) that allows people 18 and older to tote concealed guns.
The bill eliminates the crime of carrying a concealed weapon in West Virginia, said Sen. Charles Trump, R-Morgan.
The legislation next goes to the House of Delegates.
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming are the only states that allow residents to carry a hidden gun without a permit.
West Virginia already allows open carry of a handgun without a permit.
West Virginia law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the bill. They said the legislation could put officers more at risk. They also noted that the weapons-permit fees generate funds for sheriffs departments across the state. Last year, the permits raised $3.4 million for the departments.
However, senators who supported the bill kept coming back to the Second Amendment.
This is a United States constitutional right, said Robert Karnes, R-Upshur. The Second Amendment recognizes this inherent right.
Sens. Corey Palumbo, D-Kanawha, and Ron Miller, D-Greenbrier, voted against the bill.
Continued here:
W.Va. Senate OKs bill to allow concealed carry without permit
The state's highest court has ruled that Massachusetts' ban on the possession of stun guns does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision on Monday, upheld the 2011 conviction of Jamie Caetano in Ashland. Police investigating a shoplifting report found a stun gun in the woman's purse.
Caetano told police that she carried the weapon as self-defense against an abusive former boyfriend and argued in her appeal that she had a constitutional right to carry it.
The justices disagreed, saying that a stun gun -- which can administer incapacitating electrical shocks -- is not the type of weapon that is subject to Second Amendment protection.
The court said it was up to the state Legislature to determine whether such weapons should be legal in Massachusetts.
Link:
Who is the anonymous person tweeting that Music Group Macao CEO Uli Behringer engages with prostitutes and evades taxes?
The company which supplies audio equipment including loudspeakers, amplifiers and mixers is no closer to finding out after a federal judge in San Francisco refused to order Twitter to reveal the individual(s) behind @NotUliBehringer and @FakeUli.
In a ruling on Monday, U.S. District Judge Laurel Beeler writes how she is concerned that breaching anonymity "would unduly chill speech and deter other critics from exercising their First Amendment rights."
Yes, anonymous trolls enjoy rights too.
Last April, Music Group Macao was so concerned with them that it filed a defamation lawsuit against "John Does" over tweets that said the company "designs its products to break in 3-6 months" and "encourages domestic violence and misogyny."
After a judge in Washington granted expedited discovery, the decision on whether or not to enforce subpoenas against Twitter landed with Judge Beeler, who got some encouragement by Twitter to make a First Amendment analysis before it blabbed.
She does so with gusto.
"The challenged speech here consists mainly of flatly derogatory statements about Music Group's CEO, and, apparently to a lesser degree, some criticism of the company's products that likely constitutes legitimate commercial criticism," the judge writes.
Unflattering tweets about Music Group's business practices and products are clearly protected by the First Amendment, she adds.
As for tweets that Behringer evades taxes or travels internationally while concealing things inside his body, Beeler says, "The first comment is troubling, the latter merely crass. But they are both onetime comments. Even the tax-evasion remark would likely be read as what it is: one rant among countless others from someone with an obvious grudge against Music Group's CEO. The court does not think that, in the eyes of an ordinary person, this one-time comment would lower the CEO in the community's estimation."
See the original post here:
MONTGOMERY CO., AL (WSFA) - A federal judge in Alabama is ruling in favor of the Target Corporation over the selling of products representing one of the Civil Rights movement's greatest icon, Rosa Parks. The ruling has the lawyer representing the case speaking out.
According to the court ruling, Target was shielded by the First Amendment in a lawsuit claiming the retailer violated publicity rights of Rosa Parks by selling nine items in their store between 2009 and 2013. The items were apparently sold without appropriate permission.
Before Rosa Parks died, Gwendolyn Thomas Kennedy,the attorney representing the Parks Institute, vowed to do everything she could to help preserve Parks' legacy. When Target started selling books, DVDs and a plaque bearing the name, likeness and image of the woman who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, Kennedy says she couldn't give up either.
We're talking about the 50th anniversary but we're not any further along with regard to protecting her rights, that's hurtful, Kennedy says. "We sued Target because Target just felt like they could use it with reckless disregard, which is amazing because you can't do that to Elvis, you can't do it to Marilyn Monroe so to do it to Rosa Parks is an extra slap in the face particularly because of what she did for us, all of us, Kennedy added.
Making a profit off of the Civil Rights icon doesn't hit a bullseye with Kennedy, she says she is dumbfounded by the court's ruling.
Target is a multi-billion dollar corporation and they're selling on mass in bulk and can afford to pay a royalty, can afford to pay a licensing fee and just won't do it," Kennedy says.
While the Target merchandise is under scrutiny, if you're looking for a Rosa Parks t-shirt or keychains, try the Rosa Parks Museum and Library gift shop on the Troy University, Montgomery campus.Troy University is able to sell Rosa Parks products because essentially they made contact with the Parks Institute, something Kennedy says never happened when it comes to Target.
We're permitted to sell memorabilia with her likeness on it, and again it's from an agreement we reached with them back in the 1990's, said Troy University Montgomery Campus Vice Chancellor Lance Tatum.We have a certain set of standards that we adhere to the merchandise that we buy all have an affiliation back to the Rosa Parks family, and as long as we stay in that framework of understanding then we are permitted to sell that material.
WSFA 12 News reached out to Target Corporate and received a statement from spokesman Evan Lapiska. The email states, We do not have anything to add and defer to the court's ruling."
Kennedy plans to appeal the ruling within the next 30 days, saying that most law is made, throughout history, in the appellate court system.
See more here:
A dramatic view inside Marathon Sports was among the new video of the Boston Marathon bombing released as the trial got underway.
Watch Kelley's report
Far more graphic surveillance video from Forum Restaurant, including survivor Marc Fucarile on fire, was also shown in court but not released publicly. The decision to keep some video under wraps has pitted victims' rights against the First Amendment.
Liz Norden could clearly see her sons JP and Paul Norden as she watched the video in court.
"I saw my boys on the ground. You could see it plain as day. Their legs were missing," Norden said. "I saw one of their friends on fire. It was horrible."
Fucarile has never seen the video and tells WCVB's Kelley Tuthill it should stay out of public view so his young son never sees it either. Norden agrees.
"I think the victims should be able to see it and for them to decide," Norden said.
In an email, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney said graphic images have been withheld in "order to protect victims' privacy and dignity and safeguard their emotional and psychological welfare."
"Unfortunately and sadly this time it's not about the victims," said Emily Rooney, the host of WGBH's Beat the Press. The local and network TV veteran calls this overreach by the US Attorney.
"It's one thing to ask us to use it with caution and carefully," Rooney said. "It's another thing to say that you can't have it. It was shown in open court."
Original post:
Decision not to release graphic trial video raising First Amendment questions
Twitter last week announced plans to begin tracking troublesome users via their mobile phone number. Along those lines, it has begunforcing users of anonymous web browser Torto providea number in order to open a new account.
Update:A Twitter representative told TechCrunch that the companyhas notmade specific changes to the registration process for Tor browser users.
Twitter does not block or force Tor users to phone verify in order to sign up. Occasionally, signups and logins may be asked to phone verify as they may exhibit behavior similar to spam. This is applicable to all IPs and not just Tor IPs.
However, we repeated the sign-up process more than a dozen time and each time a phone number was required, while many on Twitter also found the same. The exception, it seems, is for browsers like Mozilla which can runTor. In the latter case, Twitter does not appear to be requiring phone verification. At the least, it seems that more connections via Tor are being flagged as potentially spam accounts and thus require phone verification.
The U.S. company doesnt mandateits users to associate their account with a mobile number thats optional but its new security system will use short-term suspensions to get the digits of serial trolls. The idea here is to find something identifiable that can be used to trace them if they open new accounts, as many serial abuses do.
Those who open a new account via Tor, however, will have their number added to Twitters database right away, following this apparent new change in the sign-up process.
The issue was first flagged on Twitter, and we confirmed itwith our own testing.
I was able to open a new Twitter account using Googles Chrome browser by just providing an email address. The same process done withinTor leftme needing to submit a phone number for SMS verification.
We contacted Twitter for comment, but the company had not responded at the time of writing.
Read the original:
Tor Users Must Now Provide A Phone Number To Open A New Twitter Account
The popular BitTorrent client uTorrent is facing a backlash after trying to turn a buck through cryptocurrency mining.
On Thursday, users started reporting that uTorrent had silently installed cryptocurrency software from Epic Scale as part of version 3.4.2 build 28913. Once installed, Epic Scale uses some of the computer's spare processing power to generate cryptocurrency (such as Bitcoin or Litecoin).
In response to user complaints, a uTorrent manager confirmed parent company BitTorrent's partnership with Epic Scale, saying the software generates revenue for uTorrent while also contributing some funds to charity. In the future, Epic Scale plans to contribute CPU cycles to other initiatives, such as Genome mapping and other academic studies that require a great deal of processing power.
However, the manager denied that EpicScale was installing without the user's permission, claiming that uTorrent could not reproduce the issue. That's despite complaints from five users on uTorrent's forums who say the software was installed automatically in the latest update.
Update:BitTorrent supplied PCWorld with this comment:
"We have reviewed the issue closely and can confirm there is no silent install happening. It is in fact impossible for partner software to be installed without user permission. We are continuing to look at the issue. But it is almost certain these users accepted the offer during install...
In terms of user complaints in our forums, we always take these claims seriously. We highly value our users, they are a passionate and tech savvy group. In the last 24 hours we have received less than a dozen inquiries out of several million offers. That should put things into perspective."
In any event, users can partially uninstall EpicScale through the Add/Remove Programs menu in Windows. A registry modification will remain in the ProgramData/Epicscale folder, though users can safely delete this folder once the uninstall is complete. That hasn't stopped dozens of outraged users from swearing off uTorrent in favor of alternatives such as qBittorrent, Deluge, and Transmission.
Why this matters: Cryptocurrency mining burns more than just spare system resources. By making the CPU work harder than it normally would, it also consumes more energy, potentially raising users' electricity bills. While it's ironic that users are aghast at an act of leeching from a program that facilitates media piracy, that doesn't let uTorrent off the hook for a lack of transparency. Some quick backtracking seems likely.
Jared writes for PCWorld and TechHive from his remote outpost in Cincinnati. More by Jared Newman
Read more here:
uTorrent quietly installs a cryptocurrency miner on users' computers