Belgium: Ukraine will become a member of NATO, says NATO’s Rasmussen – Video

Posted on by


Belgium: Ukraine will become a member of NATO, says NATO #39;s Rasmussen
The prime minister of Ukraine said he will ask parliament to put the country on a course to join NATO. Kyiv accuses Moscow of bringing troops into the countr. World News USA News America...

By: Juli Sanderes

View post:

Belgium: Ukraine will become a member of NATO, says NATO's Rasmussen - Video

NATO military committee officials meet in Norfolk

Posted on by

By Brock Vergakis The Associated Press October 7, 2014

NORFOLK

Members of NATO's military committee began meeting in Virginia on Tuesday to get an update from the alliance's only command in North America and discuss the creation of a quick-reaction force in Europe.

Officials from the military committee are visiting NATO's Allied Command Transformation through Wednesday.

The Norfolk-based command serves as a type of think tank for the alliance and looks for ways to address current and emerging threats impacting the 28-nation alliance. The committee's visit to the command occurs once a year. While the discussions are classified, NATO officials said they would focus on developments from a recent NATO summit in Wales, an initiative that calls for interoperable forces as well as the planned quick-reaction force that's intended to counter Russian aggression in eastern Europe.

"We must make sure that all the nations are aligned with those projects and this is a unique occasion we have to do that in a very open, very frank manner," said French Air Force General Jean Paul-Palomeros, NATO ACT's supreme commander.

Details of the quick-reaction force will be worked out in February at a NATO ministerial meeting, but it is expected to consist of 4,000 to 5,000 troops. Among other things, NATO officials are still working out where those troops will be located.

The military committee is made up of senior military officers from each NATO member and is the primary source of military advice to NATO's civilian decision-making bodies - the North Atlantic Council and the Nuclear Planning Group.

Along with the spearhead force, the Readiness Action Plan approved by President Barack Obama and leaders of the 27 other allied nations includes stepped-up intelligence sharing, an upgrade of defense plans and more military exercises on short notice.

"This is an important event for the military committee because it ensures that the decisions taken by the heads of states and government taken at the Wales summit last month are properly operationalized and we stay focused on our work," said Danish Army General Knud Bartels, chairman of the military committee, at a news conference at Allied Command Transformation headquarters.

Originally posted here:

NATO military committee officials meet in Norfolk

NSA internal watchdog defends agency's privacy practices

Posted on by

The U.S. National Security Agency takes multiple steps to protect the privacy of the information it collects about U.S. residents under a secretive surveillance program, according to a report from the agencys privacy office.

Surveillance under presidential Executive Order 12333, which dates back to 1981, generally sets the ground rules for the NSAs overseas surveillance. It allows the agency to keep the content of U.S. citizens communications if they are collected incidentally while the agency is targeting overseas communications.

But the surveillance of U.S. residents is conducted with several privacy safeguards in place, ensuring that the NSA collects the right information from the right targets and does not share the collected information inappropriately, according to the NSA Civil Liberties and Privacy Office report, released Tuesday.

NSA safeguards include privacy training for every employee, an oath of office that requires all employees to protect privacy and civil liberties and privacy oversight by six internal organizations, including the office that prepared Tuesdays report.

Consistent communication from NSA leadership on protecting privacy has resulted in a work force that respects the law, understands the rules, complies with the rules, and is encouraged to report problems and concerns, the report said. NSA takes several steps to ensure that each individual who joins its ranks understands from the first day on the job that civil liberties and privacy protection is a priority and a key personal responsibility.

The privacy safeguards inside the agency dont make up for a lack of robust judicial and congressional oversight of the program, the American Civil Liberties Union said. Oversight from both of those branches of government are all but entirely lacking when it comes to surveillance under this order, Patrick Toomey, an ACLU staff attorney, said by email. Rather, these rules can be changed by executive officials unilaterally and in secret, as they have been in the past.

The report doesnt address the privacy issues related to the NSAs separate bulk collection programs, which means it leaves aside some of the NSAs most indiscriminate surveillance programs, Toomey added.

Targeted 12333 surveillance is separate from the so-called bulk collection programs disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, including the NSAs collection of most U.S. telephone records and its collection of the online communications of foreigners allegedly connected to terrorism activities.

The NSA has not disclosed how many U.S. communications it has collected under its 12333 program, but a 2007 document released last month by the ACLU, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, describes the surveillance program as the primary source of the NSAs foreign intelligence gathering authority.

Its heartening that the NSA has some privacy protections in place, but significant concerns remain, said Robyn Greene, policy counsel at think tank New America Foundations Open Technology Institute.

More:

NSA internal watchdog defends agency's privacy practices

Posted in NSA

Berlin still very upset over NSA scandal

Posted on by

The organizers did everything they could to ensure a peaceful conference. The two-day event in Berlin hosted by the German Federal Academy for Security Policy - with DW as a media partner - sounded inconspicuous enough. Titled: "Europe's stability - Germany's security," it dealt with the fallout of the financial crisis for European security.

Panelists discussed the ramifications of the financial crisis for political decision making, how to deal with a resurgent Russia as well as the challenges posed by the rapid rise in refugees fleeing to Europe in the wake of events in Syria and Iraq.

Transatlantic relations and US foreign policy cropped up only once in a while on the sidelines of a predominantly European-focused debate. The NSA scandal wasn't brought up at all - that is, until the very last panel of the gathering, where it gave the conference a bitter aftertaste.

Financial crisis - a chance for the betterment of Europe?

Taking a page from Winston Churchill's playbook - "never let a good crisis go to waste" - panelists were asked to debate how the financial crisis could be reconfigured as a chance for the betterment of European integration and the transatlantic alliance.

The panelists, James D. Melville, the US' deputy ambassador to Germany, Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the Bundestag's Committee on Foreign Affairs for the CDU, and Gregor Gysi, the parliamentary leader of the Left Party in the Bundestag, understandably struggled to find a common thread connecting the financial crisis with the improvement of transatlantic ties and the deepening of the European project.

Gysi asked why the US wouldn't sign a no-spy Agreement with Berlin

As a result, each panelist focused on a certain point. Gysi repeatedly lamented the failure of the UN Security Council to fulfill its role as the world's decisive political body. As a consequence, he suggested the US, China and Russia should be locked up in a single room and be forced to stay in there until they had solved the world's problems.

Kiesewetter and Melville's comments were more realistic. Kiesewetter urged that with all the debate about a larger international role for Germany and calls to beef up the country's military forces, Germany must first define its strategic interests and have a public debate about the issue.

Melville reiterated two truisms often stated by the Obama administration. One: that not even the United States can solve the world's problems alone; and two: that in global politics, Germany punches below its weight, with Washington supporting a stronger role for Berlin on the international stage.

Read this article:

Berlin still very upset over NSA scandal

Posted in NSA

Udall, Gardner Spar Over Economy In Fiery Debate

Posted on by

DENVER (CBS4) -Sen. Mark Udall and Rep. Cory Gardner skirmished over their visions for Colorados economy during a prickly debate on Tuesday that featured aggressive attacks from both candidates.

The wide-ranging one-hour debate touched on womens issues, the Islamic State and the Second Amendment. But bickering about the economy and intertwining issues like the Affordable Care Act, the Keystone XL pipeline, jobs reports and U.S. debt dominated.

Gardner, who is challenging Udall for his U.S. Senate seat,broadly hammered the incumbentfor backing a government-intensive approach to the economy. Udall, meanwhile, accused Gardner of hands-off policies that would ensure the middle class suffers while companies increase profits.

Udall said the government should raise the minimum wage, pass the Paycheck Fairness Act that would largely ensure gender-pay equality, make college more affordable and create incentives for companies to keep jobs in the country.

Why do I bring this up? Its because Congressman Gardner has a different point of view on all of those issues, Udall said. If we dont respond, we run the risk of the middle class not being the strong part of our society that its always been.

Gardner countered that a more laissez-faire economic approach would benefit Colorado.

It is beyond time we got government out of the way and let America work, he said. We must unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of this county.

Gardner attacked Udalls economic record with a bevy of statistics: that Coloradans are earning $4,000 less in median household income than they were several years ago, that the labor force participation rate is at its lowest percentage in 36 years and that Udall isnt firmly backing the construction of the Keystone pipeline, which Gardner said would bring thousands of $20 and $30 jobs.

Thats whats happening under the failed leadership of Mark Udall, Gardner said. We need more Colorado in Washington and less Washington in Colorado. Unfortunately our economy is stuck in reverse.

Udall countered that Gardner was sour on the state.

Continued here:

Udall, Gardner Spar Over Economy In Fiery Debate

Mike Jones Supports the First Amendment, Even When Local Gov’t Doesn’t Like to Be Questioned – Video

Posted on by


Mike Jones Supports the First Amendment, Even When Local Gov #39;t Doesn #39;t Like to Be Questioned
All videos by Dale Matthews are on the non-commercial site BadCounty com and also on Facebook and Twitter. Josephine County Weekly Business Session, Septem...

By: Dale Matthews

Continue reading here:

Mike Jones Supports the First Amendment, Even When Local Gov't Doesn't Like to Be Questioned - Video

VICTORY! Federal Judge Rules ‘Police Violated Constitutional Rights’ of Ferguson Protesters! – Video

Posted on by


VICTORY! Federal Judge Rules #39;Police Violated Constitutional Rights #39; of Ferguson Protesters!
http://www.undergroundworldnews.com A Missouri federal judge has agreed with an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit claiming the First Amendment rights of Ferguson residents and their supporters...

By: DAHBOO77

Excerpt from:

VICTORY! Federal Judge Rules 'Police Violated Constitutional Rights' of Ferguson Protesters! - Video

County could face First Amendment lawsuit

Posted on by

GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. -

A warning Tuesday night to Clay County leaders from their attorney. End the ban on adult establishments or face a pricey lawsuit.

The Clay County Planning and Zoning Department held a meeting to discuss ways that would allow sex shops to open while keeping residents happy.

The county placed a ban on all forms of adult businesses in 1985. County attorney Mark Scruby told a heated crowd that if that ban remained in place, the county could face a First Amendment lawsuit from someone trying to open such a business because it would violated their constitutional right to free speech.

Many people at the meeting did not agree.

"I'm a mom and I don't think that type of industry brings positive growth," said Joie McGee, a resident who founded the Concerned Citizens Against Adult Entertainment. "The county has stated this will increase crime rate and decrease property taxes. So, we're just very concerned as to why they think it's necessary to make these initiatives.

The initiatives are a three-pronged approach county officials would have to propose to regulating adult businesses in Clay County.

Scruby said the first would be a regulatory ordinance which would regulate how a sex-themed business would operate. The second is a public nudity ordinance which would restrict public nudity. The third is a locational ordinance that would regulate where adult entertainment establishments would be allowed to locate.

One county planner worked along with Scruby and recommended 28 sites that are just south of Fleming Island on U.S. Highway 17, to be designated for these shops.

Clay County Commissioner Ronnie Robinson disagrees with ending the ban.

More:

County could face First Amendment lawsuit

Twitter Sues the Government for Violating Its First Amendment Rights

Posted on by

Twitter just sued the federal government over restrictions the government places on how much the company can disclose about surveillance requests it receives.

For months, Twitter has tried to negotiate with the government to expand the kind of information that it and other companies are allowed to disclose. But it failed. Today, Twitter asserts in its suit that preventing the company from telling users how often the government submits national security requests for user data is a violation of the First Amendment.

The move goes a step beyond a challenge filed by Google and other companies last year that also sought permission on First Amendment grounds to disclose how often it receives national security requests for data. In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks about government spying and the so-called PRISM program, the companies sought to add statistics about national security requests to transparency reports that some of them were already publishing. Up to that point, the reports had revealed only the number of general law enforcement requests for data that the companies received each year, not so-called National Security Letters the companies received for data or other national security requests submitted with a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The companies asserted that without the ability to disclose more details about the data requests they received, the public was left to speculate wildly that they were providing unfettered access to user data or giving the government information in bulk. If the public knew how few requests for data they actually received, they argued, people would be re-assured that this was not the case.

[G]overnment nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation, Googles Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote in a letter to the attorney general and FBI. Googles numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

Although the companies won a partial victory in negotiation when the government agreed earlier this year to let them publish broad statistics about national security requests they received, the statistics turned out to be nothing more than a coy tease. They provided no real transparency. The companies were only allowed to publish a range of the requests they received. For example, they were only allowed to disclose that they had received between 0 and 999 national security requests for data. They also had a six-month delay imposed on them, prohibiting them from disclosing certain sets of information, and a two-year delay for disclosing other sets of data.

In August, Google and Microsoft pressed for the right to release more statistics, including a breakdown of the number of requests specifically targeting user content, versus requests seeking metadata.

Twitter was not part of the legal challenges filed by the other companies but engaged in its own battle for more transparency. Last April, the company submitted a draft of the kind of transparency report it sought to make public.

Twitter sought, among other things, to narrow the scope for reporting statistics. Instead of reporting requests in a range of 0 to 999, it wanted to be able to report actual aggregate numbers for the number of NSL and FISA orders it received and to be able to break down, in smaller batches, each type of request. For example, it wanted to be able to report the number of NSLs and FISA orders it received in a range of 1-99.

The Justice Department responded in September that the proposed report contained classified informationwithout specifying which part of the information was classifiedthat could not be publicly released under the current FISA and National Security Letter laws. These statutes come with a gag order preventing service providers from disclosing the data requests they receive.

See the original post here:

Twitter Sues the Government for Violating Its First Amendment Rights

Twitter sues US Justice for right to disclose surveillance requests

Posted on by

Twitter has filed a lawsuit againt the US Department of Justice yesterday, alleging that the restrictions on what the company can report publicly about the governments national security requests for user data violate the firms First Amendment rights.

In the suit filed in the US District Court Twitter argued that the current rules prevent it from even stating that it has not received any national security requests for user information.

Twitter said the restrictions violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Tech companies have sought to clarify their relationships with law enforcement and spying agencies in the wake of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that outlined the depth of US spying activities.

Twitter's lawsuit follows an agreement between companies like Google and Microsoft with the government about court orders they receive related to surveillance.

The agreement freed the companies to disclose the number of orders they received, but only in broad ranges. A company that offers email services, for example, would be able to say it received between zero and 999 orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court during a six-month period for email content belonging to someone outside the United States.

"The US government has taken the position that service providers like Twitter are even prohibited from saying that they have received zero national security requests, or zero of a particular type of national security request," Twitter said in its complaint.

The Justice Department responded to the lawsuit with a statement on how it has worked with other companies.

Earlier this year, the government addressed similar concerns raised in a lawsuit brought by several major tech companies," Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. "There, the parties worked collaboratively to allow tech companies to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security."

The American Civil Liberties Union praised Twitter's action, saying in a statement that the company was doing the right thing by "challenging this tangled web of secrecy rules and gag orders."

Continue reading here:

Twitter sues US Justice for right to disclose surveillance requests

Twitter rails at transparency report conditions, files suit against US

Posted on by

Twitter has launched a suit against the US Government. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court of Northern California, demands that Twitter's full transparency report about law enforcement requests be published in its entirety, and that restrictions placed on what may be disclosed are illegal under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Conditions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) prevent companies from disclosing exact numbers of requests it receives in anything but the broadest ranges. Twitter not only wants to disclose more specific numbers, but also wishes to be able to say that they received none, if applicable. The company filed its report, and wanted input on what the government considered classified in July -- in September, the US Government declared that "information contained in the [transparency] report is classified and cannot be publicly released." Twitter disagrees.

Vice President of Twitter Legal Ben Lee wrote that "It's our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users' concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance -- including what types of legal process have not been received. We should be free to do this in a meaningful way, rather than in broad, inexact ranges."

Lee goes on to say that "the Defendants' position forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether." Additionally, the Twitter-filed complaint says that the restrictions are "an unconstitutional prior restraint" and "government viewpoint discrimination" against Twitter's right to discuss what it has received for legal process claims.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also serving California, is examining the same issue from a different complainant this week. A ruling may not come in this week's similar case for some time.

Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said of the suit that "earlier this year, the government addressed similar concerns raised in a lawsuit brought by several major tech companies." Referring to the current system of transparency, Pierce claimed that "the parties worked collaboratively to allow tech companies to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security."

Twitter FISA complaint to US District Court

By Electronista Staff

See the original post here:

Twitter rails at transparency report conditions, files suit against US