Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters

NEARLY everyone lives by their smartphone these days, including U.S. Supreme Court justices. In Riley v. California, the nations highest court recently acknowledged this, finding all citizens have a Fourth Amendment right of privacy in their cellphones. The often-divided court was unanimous.

Before the Riley decision, lower courts were split on whether it was necessary to obtain a warrant before searching a suspects cellphone. Justice John Roberts definitively settled the dispute: Get a warrant.

The federal and Washington state constitutions are often tested in the context of criminal activity, but the ramifications of this ruling are weighty and will send ripples well beyond criminal suspects. The Riley decision speaks to the privacy rights of all in the digital age, including public employees.

Washington states Constitution provides citizens broader privacy rights than the Fourth Amendment, and the state Supreme Court has been ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue.

The Riley ruling will help decrease harassment of public employees by prison inmates and others who attempt to use Washington states Public Records Act to violate the privacy rights of teachers, firefighters, police officers, prosecutors and other public servants.

Pierce County and other government entities have been sued by requesters who wrongly claim the Public Records Act is a license to search the personal phones of public servants to determine if there have been work-related conversations or if personal phones were used during work hours. This far-fetched and shortsighted theory violates the privacy of public servants, their families, friends, and everyone who contacts them.

Such lawsuits against Pierce County have been twice dismissed by Superior Court judges, though the issues are continuing to wind through the courts. The Superior Court agreed that personal phone records and text messages are not public records and are protected by both the Washington and U.S. constitutions.

Public servants and other law-abiding citizens do not have fewer rights than criminals.

Some argue public servants could hide behind the state or federal constitution and somehow create shadow governments, and therefore they should give up their constitutional rights. Imagine, teachers could be forced to turn over their personal phones to be searched for public records because they might have talked or texted with a students parent. This is a good premise for a dystopian movie, but a bad law for a free society, and fortunately this is not the law in the United States or in Washington state.

Our federal Supreme Court has specifically held that public employees do not give up their constitutional rights by working for the public. Public employees make sacrifices to serve our communities, but they do not sacrifice their constitutional rights. Like private-sector employees, public-sector employees have a free-speech right to talk about their work and a constitutional right to privacy as well. Private landlines, which do not create public records, did not result in shadow governments and neither will personal cellphones.

Read the rest here:

Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters

NRA Endorses Tom Corbett for Governor in Pennsylvania

press release from the NRA:

On behalf of our five million members across the country, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to endorse Tom Corbett for Governor in Pennsylvania.

Based on his support of and commitment to the Second Amendment, Corbett has earned an A rating from the NRA-PVF in the 2014 general election. An A rating is reserved for a solidly pro-gun candidate who has supported the NRAs position on issues of importance to gun owners and sportsmen.

Tom Corbett has stood up to the gun control crowd and protected our Second Amendment freedoms in Pennsylvania, said Chris W. Cox, chairman of the NRA-PVF. As Governor, he signed into law Castle Doctrine legislation expanding protection to law-abiding citizens for self-defense. Prior to that, when he served as Attorney General, Tom tripled the number of right-to-carry reciprocity agreements with other states allowing Pennsylvanians to better protect themselves and their families while traveling outside the Keystone state.

Gov. Corbett has a proven record supporting our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He believes hunting is a valuable tool for wildlife management, a positive use of natural resources, and an American tradition that teaches young people responsibility and respect for the outdoors. In addition, Corbett signed pro-gun friend of the court briefs in the landmark Heller and McDonald cases asserting that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right for all law-abiding Americans.

We can continue to count on Tom Corbett to stand up for our constitutional freedoms in Pennsylvania, added Cox. On behalf of the NRAs five million members, I want to thank Tom for his steadfast support of the Second Amendment and urge all NRA members, gun owners and sportsmen in Pennsylvania to vote Tom Corbett for Governor on November 4.

See the original post:

NRA Endorses Tom Corbett for Governor in Pennsylvania

David Harsanyi The senators who really threaten America

WE ARE, as it always seems, at a pivotal moment in American history. At least thats what Sens. Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders maintained in a melodramatic Politico column recently as they explained their efforts to repeal the First Amendment.

Let me retort in their language:Its true that building the United States has been long, arduous and rife with setbacks. But throughout the years, the American people have repelled efforts to weaken or dismantle the First Amendment. We have weathered the Sedition Act of 1918, a law that led to the imprisonment of innocent Americans who opposed the war or the draft. Since then, we have withstood many efforts to hamper, chill and undermine basic free expression in the name of patriotism. We have, however, allowed elected officials to treat citizens as if they were children by arbitrarily imposing strict limits on their free speech in the name of fairness.But nowadays, after five members of the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and treated all political speech equally, liberal activists and Democrats in the Senate would have us return to a time when government dispensed speech to favored institutions as if it were the governments to give.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to more political activism and more grass-roots engagement than ever before. In the 2012 presidential election, we quickly saw the results.

More Americans voted than in any election; more minorities voted; more Americans engaged in more debate and had more information in their hands than ever before. More than 60 percent of all those super PAC funds came from just 159 donors, each of whom gave more than $1 million. And still, every vote held the same sway. You may be convinced by someone, but no one can buy your vote. I wish the same could be said for your senators.

Even less worrisome is the propaganda surrounding scary-sounding dark money dollars spent by groups that do not have to disclose their funding sources. The 2012 elections saw almost $300 million spent on engagement in our democratic institutions, and the 2014 midterm elections could see as much as $1 billion invested in political debate. That means more democratization of media and more challenges to a media infrastructure that once managed what news we were allowed to consume. Still, no one can buy your vote.

No single issue is more important to the needs of average Americans than upholding the Constitution over the vagaries of contemporary political life. The people elected to office should be responsive to the needs of their constituents. They should also be prepared to be challenged. But mostly, they should uphold their oath to protect the Constitution rather than find ways to undermine it.

When the Supreme Court finds, for purposes of the First Amendment, that corporations are people, that writing checks from the companys bank account is constitutionally protected speech and that attempts to impose coercive restrictions on political debate are unconstitutional, we realize that we live in a republic that isnt always fair but is, for the most part, always free.

Americans right to free speech should not be proportionate to their political power. This is why its vital to stop senators from imposing capricious limits on Americans.

It is true that 16 states and the District of Columbia, along with more than 500 cities and towns, have passed resolutions calling on Congress to reinstitute restriction on free speech. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support the abolishment of super PACs. So its important to remember that one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers offered us the Constitution was to offer a bulwark against democracy. Senators may have an unhealthy obsession with the democratic process, and Supreme Court justices are on the bench for life for that very reason.

Last week, Democrats offered an amendment to repeal the First Amendment in an attempt to protect their own political power. Whiny senators most of them patrons to corporate power and special interests engaged in one of the most cynical abuses of their power in recent memory. Those who treat Americans as if they were hapless proles unable to withstand the power of a television commercial are the ones who fear speech. Thats not what the American republic is all about.

Go here to see the original:

David Harsanyi The senators who really threaten America

Senate candidates differ on overturning Citizens United ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more from the original source:

Senate candidates differ on overturning Citizens United ruling

Why a thinly sourced, unverified report about Comcast has the Web in an uproar

In the last 24 hours, Comcast has been embroiled in a minor controversy concerning countless subscribers who use Tor, the traffic-anonymizing service designed to hide your Web activity from would-be snoops. According to a report on a Web site known as Deep Dot Web, Comcast has"declared war" oncustomers who use Tor and is threatening to disconnect their service overa perfectly legitimate activity. Not surprisingly, the accusations have thrown Internet users many of whom are already predisposed to dislike Comcast into an uproar.

But don't buy what Deep Dot Web is selling. Comcast is denying the accusations, of course, but the claims are also being rejected by Tor users themselves. Between the unambiguousdenunciations coming from Comcast and the thinly-sourced nature of Deep Dot Web's report, it isn't likely that Comcast is doing anything nefarious here.

Citing anonymous sources on a relatively obscure redditpageand at least one complaint shared withDeep Dot Web directly, the report accuses Comcast of telling customers that Tor is an"illegal service" that violates the company's acceptable use policy. Failure to terminate Tor usage, these service reps say, would result in the termination of Comcast service, according to Deep Dot Web.

If you've never used Tor, the service has one basic function: to hide your browsing habits from prying eyes. When using the Tor browser a specially modified version of Firefox your traffic doesn't go directly to its destination, but instead gets bounced across multiple intermediaries. When it comes out the other side and continues on, it's almost impossible to tell where (and from whom) the traffic originated. Not even the NSA has figured out how to crack the core Tor infrastructure (as far as we know.)

What Deep Dot Web is implying is that Comcast is monitoring people who use this service and singling them out for special treatment. It's significant not only because these are serious charges, but because it recalls a similar case resolved in 2008 concerning Comcast's throttling of peer-to-peer filesharing services. Back then, the FCC said that Comcast was violating net neutralityby taking action against BitTorrent traffic. Although the incident led an appeals court to rulein Comcast's favor, itkicked off a debate over net neutrality that continues today.

Unlike the BitTorrent case, it doesn't appear that the Comcast actions against Tor are widespread, if they're happening at all. On Monday, the company categoricallydeniedmonitoring what users do on its network.

"The report may havegenerated a lot of clicks, but is totally inaccurate," Comcast exec Jason Livingood wrote in a blog post. "Comcast is not asking customers to stop using Tor, or any otherbrowser for that matter."

Livingood added that he is an occasional Tor user himself.

A Comcast spokesman clarified to The WashingtonPost that "termination is not a policypost-BitTorrent, we've been very consistent and clear there's no application or service or any website or protocol that our customers cannot use with their Comcast Internet service."

There are good reasons to be skeptical of Comcast, particularly when the company has itself acknowledged its poor record on customer service. Bashing Comcast is easy and popular, which may be one reason Deep Dot Web's report rose so quickly to the top of reddit Monday morning. (The report is now nowhere to be found on reddit'sfront page.)

See original here:

Why a thinly sourced, unverified report about Comcast has the Web in an uproar

LXC Coin crowdfunds in challenge to Bitcoin

LXC Coin will work with a network of P2P lenders across the world, and could evolve into its own P2P vehicle over the coming years.

Unlike many other cryptocurrencies, the LXC Coin is real, according to Ellefsen. If crypocurrencies were banned tomorrow - and Russia is looking to do that right now - our coin would keep its value. You could reclaim your investment from us.

Cryptocurrencies havent been real money until now, he claims.

Bitcoin, which currently trades for around $500 per coin, is seen as a volatile currency by investors. It can lose up to 30pc of its value in a single day. LXC Coin will control supply and demand, much like a central bank, ensuring a consistent price for the coin.

Some 1.1bn of these new coins will be issued over the next four to five years.

The LXC Coin is based on the code from the worlds most famous cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, mixed with BlackCoin technology. Unlike Bitcoin, BlackCoin does not have to be mined. It is based on a proof of stake concept, which means that it has become a dominant digital currency through the sheer proliferation of coins held in wallets by users.

By using the BlackCoin model, LXC Coin does not require vast amounts of computing power and electricity to exist.

Customers must pay hard cash or exchange it for other digital currencies.

The company was founded in Denmark in 2012 and became a UK holding company in 2014.

Ellefsen chose to raise money on Crowd For Angels, the UKs FCA-regulated debt and equity platform, to generate awareness for the start-up and prove that its model was FCA compliant.

See more here:

LXC Coin crowdfunds in challenge to Bitcoin

WikiLeaks Avoided Bitcoin to Prevent Government 'Destroying' Cryptocurrency

Bitcoin Founder Satoshi Nakamoto urged Wikileaks not to use the cryptocurrency for fear of unwanted attention(Reuters)

The creator of bitcoin appealed to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange not to use the cryptocurrency to receive donations due to fears that government attention would "destroy" it.

The revelations surfaced from Assange's latest book that comes out this week, When Google Met WikiLeaks.

In a footnote, the WikiLeaks founder said he spoke with the pseudonymous inventor of bitcoin after Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and other financial companies pulled their services from his organisation in 2010.

When a member of a bitcoin forum suggested Wikileaks could accept bitcoin, Nakamoto apparently claimed such integration would "provoke unwanted government interest" in the nascent cryptocurrency.

"The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way," Nakamoto said. "I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use bitcoin.

"Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage."

The original post can still be viewed on an archived versionof the bitcoin forum. Six days later, Nakamoto disappeared from the bitcoin community and has remained an evasive figure ever since.

His final post read: "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest and the swarm is headed towards us."

As a result, Wikileaks did not launch a bitcoin donation channel on its site, instead waiting until the cryptocurrency's first major boom on 14 June 2011.

Read more:

WikiLeaks Avoided Bitcoin to Prevent Government 'Destroying' Cryptocurrency

United Way Accepts Bitcoin — Russia to Ban Bitcoin — Walmart & BestBuy say No to Apple – Video


United Way Accepts Bitcoin -- Russia to Ban Bitcoin -- Walmart BestBuy say No to Apple
sponsored by http://MtPig.com -- bitcoin prices and more! Join the MadBitcoins Patreon for behind the scenes content! http://patreon.com/madbitcoins September 15th, 2014 -- Paris, France...

By: MadBitcoins

Visit link:

United Way Accepts Bitcoin -- Russia to Ban Bitcoin -- Walmart & BestBuy say No to Apple - Video

Bitcoin isnt risky when you know your customers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the rest here:

Bitcoin isnt risky when you know your customers

Comets volleyball teams both in Prince Albert

Both the senior boys and senior girls MUCC Comets volleyball teams were in Prince Albert this weekend with the boys at St. Marys and the girls at Prince Albert Carlton. They played very well, we are getting some of the kinks out and progressing well on the team game, senior girls Comets coach Rob Moore said. The Comets placed fifth in round robin play and met TMSS in the playoff on Saturday afternoon losing 28-30, 23-25. They opened by losing 16-25, 18-25 to the host Prince Albert Carlton on Friday night. In their second round robin game the Comets lost 18-25, 25-27 to Meadow Lake. On Saturday the Comets opened losing 23-25, 21-25 to Prince Albert St. Marys, they next defeated Naicam 25-21, 25-17.In their next round robin game the Comets defeated La Loche 25-22, 25-21. They split their final round robin game 26-24, 17-25 with their playoff opponent TMSS. The senior boys Comets placed second in their pool in the initial round robin, losing to Carlton and defeating St. Josephs and Muenster. They were placed in the A side after a re-pooling and finished in a three-way tie for second. After defeating Waldheim in a tiebreaker they advanced the semifinal and again lost to Prince Albert Carlton. The Comets finished fourth after losing the bronze game. Advancing to the bronze game was a success for the Comets, who were in their first tournament of the year Compared to last year, we only have one player returning to the same position, therefore this was a good weekend for us to feel some things out, and learn a bit about our strengths and weaknesses, senior boys Comets coach Graham Calow said. The senior boys play at the University of Saskatchewan Tournament beginning September 19, while the senior girls are at Prince Albert St. Marys.

See the article here:

Comets volleyball teams both in Prince Albert

Comets Re-Sign Lucas Rodriguez

September 15, 2014 - Major Arena Soccer League (MASL) Missouri Comets INDEPENDENCE, MO (September 12, 2014) - After winning the 2013 MISL Championship last year, the Missouri Comets have announced the re-signing of midfielder Lucas Rodriguez who agreed to a two-year contract extension as the team prepares for its debut season in the Major Arena Soccer League.

Lucas Rodriguez signed with the Missouri Comets for the 2010-2011 season where he played in 17 games scoring six goals and recording seven assists. That year, Rodriguez was named the MISL Rookie of the Year.

Born in Argentina, Rodriguez played collegiately at Mid America Nazarene and led the Pioneers to the Heart of America Athletic Conference (HAAC) Championship in his senior year and was named the HACC's MVP while making the conference First Team and Third-Team All-America.

Last season was Rodriguez's finest year as a Comet, and was an integral part of the Comets championship run, helping to anchor the midfield. Rodriguez was third on the team in points with 47 and was tied for third in assists with 15.

"Lucas was outstanding last year, and we're thrilled to have him back for another two seasons," said Comets Head Coach Vlatko Andonovski. "His speed and quickness make him very difficult for other teams to mark."

Entering his fifth season, Rodriguez and the Comets will open the 2014-2015 MASL season on October 25th when they visit the Dallas Sidekicks at the Allen Events Center.

In other Comets news the team will be holding open tryout for players 18 years old and out of high school starting this Saturday, September 20th (3:00PM-6PM) and Sunday the 21st (10AM-1PM) at the KC Soccer Dome, 5909 Equitable Road, Kansas City, MO. Check in on the 20th will begin at 2PM. Registration is $50 in advance and $65 the day of tryouts. Players are required to attend both days of the tryouts.

Comets Indoor Soccer: The Comets are the reigning 2014 Major Indoor Soccer League Champions. The Comets returned to action in 2010 and play at the Independence Events Center in Independence, MO.

Discuss this story on the Major Arena Soccer League message board... Digg this story Add to Del.icio.us

See original here:

Comets Re-Sign Lucas Rodriguez

Workington Comets handed tough draw in play-offs

Last updated at 11:15, Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Workington Comets have been handed a tough draw against league leaders Edinburgh Monarchs and Berwick Bandits in the Premier League play-offs.

Josh Grajczonek: 17 points against Sheffield last weekend

The Monarchs, who secured top spot with an emphatic 54-36 away win at Glasgow on Sunday, had first pick of opponents for their play-off group.

They selected nearby rivals Comets, who they have beaten three times in as many matches this season, and fourth-placed Bandits.

The three teams will play each other home and away and the team with the most points will progress to the grand final.

The other play-off group will see Somerset Rebels face Scunthorpe Scorpions and Ipswich Witches.

Comets first play-off fixture will see them travel to face Edinburgh on Friday, September 26, and they will then host the Monarchs at Derwent Park the following day.

That means there will be no fixture this weekend for the Comets. Dates for the meetings against Berwick have yet to be arranged.

Comets owner Laura Morgan is in a relaxed mood after hearing the draw.

Here is the original post:

Workington Comets handed tough draw in play-offs