VOA60 Duniya: ‘Yan Taliban sun Kashe Sojojin NATO, Afghanistan, Satumba 16, 2014 – Video

Posted on by


VOA60 Duniya: #39;Yan Taliban sun Kashe Sojojin NATO, Afghanistan, Satumba 16, 2014
Originally published at - http://www.voahausa.com/media/video/voa60-duniya-yan-taliban-sun-kashe-sojojin-nato-afghanistan-satumba-16-2014/2451999.html.

By: SashenVOAHausa

Visit link:

VOA60 Duniya: 'Yan Taliban sun Kashe Sojojin NATO, Afghanistan, Satumba 16, 2014 - Video

Transatlantic Alliance: NATO Summit and Energy Security in Light of the Ukraine Crisis-1 – Video

Posted on by


Transatlantic Alliance: NATO Summit and Energy Security in Light of the Ukraine Crisis-1
The Center for Strategic and International Studies cordially invites you to: The U.S. - Europe Transatlantic Alliance: Assessing the NATO Summit and Energy Security in Light of the Ukraine...

By: Center for Strategic International Studies

Read this article:

Transatlantic Alliance: NATO Summit and Energy Security in Light of the Ukraine Crisis-1 - Video

NATO TV – Invisible Shield : Countering Ballistic Missile Attacks [1080p] – Video

Posted on by


NATO TV - Invisible Shield : Countering Ballistic Missile Attacks [1080p]
The NATO Ballistic Missile Defense System. USS Donald Cook Guided Missile Destroyer which is armed with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System...

By: arronlee33

Read more from the original source:

NATO TV - Invisible Shield : Countering Ballistic Missile Attacks [1080p] - Video

Nato reviews ties with Russia as new truce reached in Ukraine

Posted on by

Saturday, 20 September 2014 15:10

VILNIUS: Nato's top military commanders are meeting in Lithuania on Saturday to discuss relations with Russia as the warring sides in Ukraine agreed to pull back troops under a new peace plan reached overnight in Belarus.

General Knud Bartels, who chairs Nato's Military Committee, said defence chiefs from the 28 nation alliance are set to review "future relationship with Russia and Nato's military posture".

"Central to our discussions will be the development and implementation of the alliance readiness action plan," the Danish general said, referring to the new initiative which includes rotating troops and equipment through facilities in Eastern Europe.

The meeting will also cover Nato's mission in Afghanistan and the situation in the Middle East, including the "pressing threat" from the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, he added.

The military talks in Lithuania's capital Vilnius focused on defending Nato's eastern flank come just two weeks after Nato announced a new rapid reaction force at a key summit in Wales.

Lithuania said the new measures will also include regional "command and control" centres in the Baltic states and Poland.

These countries were formerly behind the Iron Curtain and are concerned about Russia's territorial ambitions in the wake of the Crimea annexation and the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Addressing the generals, including Nato top commander General Philip Breedlove, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybrauskaite on Saturday insisted the alliance needed to present "a clear deterrence" and that time was of the essence.

"We understand that unpreparedness cannot be our strategic weakness.... Security environment has essentially changed already half a year ago," she said.

View original post here:

Nato reviews ties with Russia as new truce reached in Ukraine

MSNBC Host Interrupts Congresswoman Talking about the NSA to Report on Justin Bieber – Video

Posted on by


MSNBC Host Interrupts Congresswoman Talking about the NSA to Report on Justin Bieber
Poll finds Americans no longer have faith in the corporate media to report the real news: http://theantimedia.org/gallup-poll-finds-american-trust-in-corporate-media-at-all-time-low/ FAIR...

By: AntiMedia

Read more:

MSNBC Host Interrupts Congresswoman Talking about the NSA to Report on Justin Bieber - Video

Posted in NSA

Former CIA Spy: NSA And DHS Have Not Prevented A Single Terrorist Attack – Video

Posted on by


Former CIA Spy: NSA And DHS Have Not Prevented A Single Terrorist Attack
Alex Joens talks with former CIA spy Robert David Steele about the state of America. http://www.infowars.com/house-approves-plan-to-arm-and-train-isis-to-fight-isis/ Follow Alex on TWITTER...

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

Visit link:

Former CIA Spy: NSA And DHS Have Not Prevented A Single Terrorist Attack - Video

Posted in NSA

NSA & The Snowden Trilogy All Campaign(er)s Are Now False – Morris – Video

Posted on by


NSA The Snowden Trilogy All Campaign(er)s Are Now False - Morris
Link to the Gaza refugees drowning by Malta: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/sinking-hundreds-fleeing Link to the Ship from Liberia with sick people: http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/ship-from-liberi...

By: 108morris108

Read more from the original source:

NSA & The Snowden Trilogy All Campaign(er)s Are Now False - Morris - Video

Posted in NSA

Apple And Google Will Force A Legal Battle Over The Privacy Of Your Passcode

Posted on by

Apple is really serious about privacy, guys.

Apple Apple wants the world to know that its really, really serious about privacy. Accompanying the launch of the iPhone 6 and iOS 8 was a personal letter from Apple CEO Tim Cook about the companys commitment to privacy and a new, revamped page about all-things-privacy on iDevices and a how-to guide for setting preferences to up your privacy if youre an iUser. Apple has long used privacy to differentiate itself from the competition; back in 2010, Steve Jobs said Apple always had a very different view of privacy than some of our colleagues in the Valley. We take privacy extremely seriously. Cook repeated the sentiment more strongly in his letter, taking direct aim at Google Google, saying Apple doesnt build a profile of its users or read their messages to get information to market to you.

Apple is getting serious about privacy because it has to. It wants the iPhone to become the only thing you need beyond oxygen. The iPhone is not just for communication and web browsing anymore. It wants to track your health (with HealthKit), be your wallet (with Apple Pay), and control the devices in your home (with HomeKit). Depending on how personalized the iPhone 6s vibration capabilities get, it could be your iSignificantOther. This is all set against the backdrop of concern about tech companies guardianship of our personal information amid the Snowden leaks. So Apple did something very smart. It announced that with iOS 8, the data encrypted on iPhones will only be able to be unlocked with your passcode. Unlike ourcompetitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data, Apple wrote on its privacy page. So its not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS8.

So now, if law enforcement wants into your phone, theyll need to get you to enter your passcode. One Apple competitor felt the heat. Google-owned Android quickly issued an us, too! announcement, saying that its next operating system will also encrypt data on smartphones by default for those using a passcode. Privacy advocates are thrilled. Its not just about making it easier to protect civil liberties in the U.S. but exporting it to countries with restrictive governments where it will now be harder to get dissidents iPhone chats.

But former federal prosecutor and legal expert Orin Kerr was not thrilled. He says that if the po-po have a warrant, they should be able to get into a phone, and that Apple is making it harder for them to conduct lawful searches. People encrypting the content of their devices is not common practice now, but moving forward, it could become widespread, and law enforcement will have to force people to hand over or enter their passcodes in order to get evidence from those devices. Thats where the legal showdown will happen.

If the government obtains a subpoena ordering the person to enter in the passcode, and the person refuses or falsely claims not to know the passcode, a person can be held in contempt for failure to comply, writes Kerr.

Thats actually disputed legal territory. Back in 2012, Hanni Fakhoury, a lawyer at civil liberties group EFF, explored the issue of decryption as a Fifth Amendment issue. Is refusing to enter the passcode to your device the same as refusing to give incriminating testimony and pleading the Fifth? There is conflicting law on the issue.

A district court judge in Colorado ruled(PDF) that Ramona Fricosu could be forced to decryptinformation on a computer seized by law enforcement in connection with a mortgage fraud case.But the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled (PDF) that the 5th Amendment prevented the government from forcing a suspect in a child pornography investigation to decrypt the contents of several computers and drives seized by law enforcement.

In one case, the court ruled that law enforcement already knew what it wanted off the computer and could get it. In the other, the court ruled that law enforcement was trying to force the alleged child porn possessor to testify against himself by performing the decryption.

Kerr thinks the Fifth Amendment shouldnt protect people against decrypting evidence that will be used against them, citing a 2009 case from Vermont, but suggests that if this turns out to be a problem, Congress should pass a new law upping the penalties beyond a simple contempt charge for people who wont hand over their passcodes, or pass a law forcing tech companies to design their systems in such a way that they can bypass the passcode.

Read the rest here:

Apple And Google Will Force A Legal Battle Over The Privacy Of Your Passcode

Great privacy essay: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance

Posted on by

When you signed up with your ISP, or with a wireless carrier for mobile devices, if you gave it any thought at all when you signed your name on the contract, you likely didn't expect your activities to be a secret, or to be anonymous, but how about at least some degree of private? Is that reasonable? No, as the law currently suggests that as a subscriber, you "volunteer" your personal information to be shared with third-parties. Perhaps not the content of your communications, but the transactional information that tells things like times, places, phone numbers, or addresses; transactional data that paints a very clear picture of your life and for which no warrant is required.

I'd like to direct your attention to an essay titled "Failing Expectations: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance" by Olivier Sylvain, Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law. He said, "Today's reasonable expectation test and the third-party doctrine have little to nothing to offer by way of privacy protection if users today are at least conflicted about whether transactional noncontent data should be shared with third parties, including law enforcement officials."

Reasonableness is all-important when it comes to the law...what a reasonable person would expect, such as a reasonable expectation of privacy. Although you may try to hold onto your privacy, you also know that most of what you do online can be discovered. "Every moment that a user is connected to the network has become an opportunity to be surveilled by law enforcement and national security agencies." Since we are not all criminals and terrorists, how is that reasonable?

Regarding our cell phones, is it reasonable that our "telecommunication carrier, smartphone manufacturer and others are aware of the location of their cell phone at any given time" because we happened to buy a specific model of phone, signed up with a carrier or installed apps? Additionally, "service providers and governments have forged a public-private collaboration through which law enforcement officials obtain location information about user accounts." In fact, the more we come to accept being tracked, to having our data sold, traded and shared, the more it gnaws away at what the public can consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sadly, the new normal is that the Fourth Amendment is in tatters.

For some, ignorance may be bliss; for none, however, is ignorance an excuse in the eyes of the law. Take the third-party doctrine, for example. Sylvain wrote, "Courts have presumed that users consent to the public disclosure of transactional data when they volunteer them to their service providers. The third-party doctrine presumes that, when users share it with third-party service providers, they convey an expectation that the information is not private. And 'it is not a defense that defendants do not control or know about the role of the third-party service provider'."

In the courts, judges want guidance from legislatures, but let's face it; the majority of Congress couldn't fill a thimble with their combined technical prowess. Yet these individuals are working on legislation that eventually determines what can and cannot be done...what is or is not the public's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sylvain argues that "the reasonable expectation standard is particularly flawed if it has the effect of encouraging judges to seek guidance from legislatures on constitutional norms and principles. Judicial review is the vital antimajoritarian check against excessive government intrusions on individual liberty under our constitutional scheme. This is a responsibility that courts cannot pass off to the political branches when, as is the case today, most people expect that the cost of network connection is total surveillance."

He adds that "court-administered privacy law doctrine must change if the protection against 'unreasonable searches and seizures' is to have any positive legal meaning. The current court-created doctrine will not be able to keep up if it compels judges to measure public expectation. It is time for courts to reassert their positive duty to say what privacy law is."

The reasonable expectation standard and the third-party doctrine have outlived their time and usefulness. Reform is especially urgent today, in the era of total surveillance, when data brokers and governments can aggregate and trade transactional subscriber data about electronic communications so easily. Expectations are difficult to define when everyone, it seems, shares their personal information with service providers and application developers in order to be connected.

Courts should "bring a needed dose of reality to Fourth Amendment analysis by excising any broad assumptions about the nature of user consent in the third-party doctrine. This reform would recognize that users do not generally choose to compromise their data about their phone use (or web browsing or e-mailing) just because they disclose information for the limited purpose of obtaining telecommunications service. Participation in the networked information economy is practically a necessity today."

Here is the original post:

Great privacy essay: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance

Judge expounds on privacy rights

Posted on by

EUREKA SPRINGS -- If you're stopped for a moving traffic violation, does the officer have the right to search your vehicle without a warrant? Ask to look at your cell phone? Detain you for longer than 15 minutes?

Judge Kent Crow addressed those and other questions last week at a program on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, given to the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. What he finds fascinating about the amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure:

"It's an absolute mess," he said. "It has created more litigation than any other amendment."

Crow, whose ancestors fought in the American Revolution, said the Fourth Amendment was a response to English writs of assistance, which gave the king's men the right to enter a home and search it any time they wanted.

"We are a nation of thieves," Crow said. "We were smugglers. We didn't want to pay the king's tax."

What the Fourth Amendment prevents: officers from crossing the threshold of your home without a search warrant specifying what (or who) they are looking for, and where it is likely to be found. If they have a warrant to search your computer, for example, they cannot go through your bedroom drawers or open the refrigerator, he said.

If, however, officers knock on your door and ask to come in and you admit them, then they are free to search the house, he said, something people may not be aware of. There is also a "knock and announce" law, meaning that with a search warrant, they can enter the house after waiting a reasonable time for someone to answer the door. They can also enter your home if there are exigent circumstances, meaning immediate concerns of an emergency nature, for example, for the safety of a person inside.

Once you are served with a search warrant, officers will proceed to the area specified and search while you peruse the warrant, Crow said. If the search is improperly conducted, you can challenge the evidence in court.

Fourth Amendment rulings have had a hard time keeping up with changing technology, Crow said, which have opened up more ways "the king's men" can cross your threshold. The general rule: If you are in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, in a fenced backyard surrounded by shrubs, the Fourth Amendment protects you from government entry or surveillance.

"The right of privacy keeps expanding," he said.

Excerpt from:

Judge expounds on privacy rights