Assemblyman Tim Donnelly Introduces Sweeping Handgun Carry License Reform Bill AB 1563

Posted on by

Sacramento, California (PRWEB) April 24, 2014

Following a landmark Ninth Circuit decision correctly holding that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense outside of our homes, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) has introduced the most sweeping reform of Californias handgun carry license laws since their establishment in 1923.

AB 1563 fixes Californias handgun carry license system by implementing a fair, efficient, and effective framework that eliminates the burden on local law enforcement while still requiring background checks and that licensees be law-abiding people, said Donnelly of the bill. What were doing is unwinding decades of unconstitutional laws and replacing them with a framework that respects our Second Amendment rights, bringing us in line with dozens of other states.

Under the existing system, sheriffs and municipal chiefs of police, who each have local rules that vary widely, are empowered to issue licenses to their residents. In many cases, these local agencies failor outright refuseto follow existing state law, creating a maze of different regulations riddled with discretionary abuse and unequal treatment of applicants. Some cities and counties have continued to deny law-abiding people their pre-existing right to bear arms, despite the court decisions. AB 1563 will consolidate the license processes under the states umbrella by establishing a single, objective standard under the jurisdiction of one issuing authority.

Californians deserve the same treatment of their Second Amendment rights as they expect for the rest of the Bill of Rights, continued Donnelly. The great disparity in policy and process across hundreds of California licensing authorities begs for a uniform system that protects their civil rights, conforms to precedent, and furthers the states narrowly-tailored interest in regulating the right to carry.

California is expected to see a skyrocketing number of handgun carry licensees, with some estimates reaching over 1.4 million new permits over next 24 monthsa striking increase from the 56,000 reported in 2013 by the California Department of Justice.

Brandon Combs, president of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), the bills sponsor, said, Our current system, nearly a century old, is riddled with discretionary abuse and practices that chill the exercise of rights our Founders knew to pre-exist government itself. Its time for California to go mainstream and join the 41 other states that have a fair and objective system. AB 1563 takes California out of the civil rights Stone Age.

Our civil rights do not end at the city, county, or state lines. When the only people who are legally carrying in downtown Los Angeles are residents of Orange County, the system needs to be scrapped and fixed for good. AB 1563 does just that, said Donnelly.

AB 1563 will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, April 29, 2014.

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) is Californias most tenacious and complete advocacy group for Second Amendment and related economic rights. CAL-FFLs thousands of members include firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, consumers, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem. CAL-FFL advances the interests of its members and the general public through direct lobbying, legal actions, education, and public outreach. To join CAL-FFL, please visit calffl.org/join.

Here is the original post:

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly Introduces Sweeping Handgun Carry License Reform Bill AB 1563

1st Amendment – Laws

Posted on by

First Amendment: Religion and ExpressionWhat is the First Amendment?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The First Amendment Defined:The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 1st Amendment:The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individuals right to practice whichever religion they see fit.The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances.In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states.The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state. How the First Amendment was created:When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791.Court Cases tied into the 1st AmendmentIn Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to the Establishment Clause, ruling that a state must demonstrate an overwhelming interest in restricting religious activities.In Employment Division v Smith, the Supreme Court went away from this standard by permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religious choices.Debs v. United States on June 16, 1919 tested the limits of free speech in regards to the clear and present danger test.1st Amendment: Freedom of SpeechFreedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment and is re-established in the majority of state and federal laws. This particular clause typically protects and individuals right to partake in even distasteful rhetoric, such as racist or sexist comments and distasteful remarks towards public policy.Speech directed towards some subjects; however, such as child pornography or speech that incites an imminent threat, as well commercial forms of speech are regulated.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved allGeorgia, Massachusetts and Connecticut did not ratify the first 10 Amendments until 1939

First Amendment: Religion and ExpressionWhat is the First Amendment?

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

The First Amendment Defined: The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 1st Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individuals right to practice whichever religion they see fit.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances.

In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states.

The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state.

How the First Amendment was created: When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791.

See the rest here:

1st Amendment - Laws

Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony

Posted on by

On Monday, April 28, the Court will hear oral arguments in Lane v. Franks on the First Amendment protections for a public employee who testifies in court. There are two respondents the previous and current presidents of the college in question and they disagree with each other on the First Amendment question. The Solicitor General will participate in the oral argument.

Background

Central to the resolution of Lane v. Franks is the reach of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Courts latest pronouncement on the First Amendment rights of public employees. Since Pickering v. Board of Education in 1968, the First Amendment has protected public employees from adverse employment actions when they are speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern. In Garcetti, the closely divided Court held that, when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The employee in Garcetti was a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles who investigated a law enforcement officers affidavit in support of a search warrant and concluded it was false. The prosecutor wrote a memo recommending the case be dismissed; his supervisors not only vehemently disagreed but also allegedly retaliated against him. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court reasoned that when an employee is simply performing his or her job duties, there is no relevant analogue to speech by citizens who are not government employees.

In the eight years since Garcetti, courts have varied in their application of the doctrine. For some courts, Garcetti has seemed a broad mandate insulating public employer actions from First Amendment challenge by any employee. Other courts, however, have limited and distinguished Garcetti. The Court has denied certiorari in several closely watched cases, such as Jackler v. Byrne and Bowie v. Maddox, which both involved police officers and reached differing conclusions, arguably producing a circuit split.

The Eleventh Circuits opinion in Lane v. Franks is decidedly in the expansive mandate camp. Indeed, the opinion is a per curiam one, decided without oral argument and intended as non-precedential. In affirming the district judges grant of summary judgment to the public employer, the Eleventh Circuit described Garcetti as further restricting public employees protected speech. Relying on its own circuit precedent, including pre-Garcetti cases, the court of appeals ruled that an employee enjoys no First Amendment protection when the speech was made pursuant to his official duties, including if his speech owes its existence to the employees professional responsibilities and is a product that the employer itself has commissioned or created. This broad category included subpoenaed testimony. However, the Eleventh Circuit recognized, albeit in a footnote, that both the Seventh Circuit and Third Circuit had decided this issue differently, citing Morales v. Jones and Reilly v. City of Atlantic City.

Even as related by the Eleventh Circuit, however, the circumstances giving rise to Lane v. Franks paint a troubling picture of retaliation for a public employees failure to cooperate with political corruption and his resulting testimony. In 2006, soon after Edward Lane became the director of a program for at-risk youth at Central Alabama Community College (CACC), he looked at the programs finances. He discovered that an Alabama state representative, Suzanne Schmitz, was listed on the payroll. He also discovered she had never performed any work for the program. Edward Lane raised his concerns about Schmitz, but he was warned by the CACC president (a predecessor to respondent Steve Franks) and CACCs lawyer that terminating Schmitzs employment could have negative repercussions for both Lane and CACC. Nevertheless, Lane did terminate Suzanne Schmitz after she refused to report to work. Schmitz told another program employee that she planned to get [Lane] back for terminating her and that, if he requested money from the state legislature, she would tell him youre fired. The FBI began investigating Suzanne Schmitz and contacted Edward Lane for information. Lane testified before a federal grand jury and pursuant to a subpoena he testified at Schmitzs two federal criminal trials for mail fraud and fraud involving a program receiving federal funds. Schmitz was ultimately convicted, although a divided Eleventh Circuit panel reversed her convictions on some of the counts.

Lane was terminated after his testimony at the first criminal trial. In January 2009, Franks who had become president of CACC terminated the twenty-nine employees of the at-risk youth program, but soon rescinded the termination of all the employees except Lane and one other. Whether Franks terminated Lane due to Lanes testimony against Schmitz remains unresolved; an essential issue in the Supreme Court is whether it needs to be.

Arguments and analysis

The primary question before the Court is whether the Eleventh Circuit was correct in holding that Lanes testimony was categorically unprotected by the First Amendment, although there is also a secondary issue of whether Franks is entitled to qualified immunity from an award for damages.

There is little support for a straightforward affirmance of the Eleventh Circuit opinion on the First Amendment issue. Lane is not the only one to argue that the Eleventh Circuits categorical exclusion of First Amendment protection for subpoenaed testimony is incorrect: the Solicitor General, representing the United States as an amicus, agrees with him. More unusually, the Alabama attorney general Alabama representing respondent Susan Burrow, the current acting president of CACC also agrees that the Eleventh Circuit was incorrect to conclude that Lanes testimony was categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. Additionally, almost all of the amicus briefs agree with this position, including one from the National Association of Police Organizations, which is perhaps not surprising given that so many of the similar cases involve persons employed in law enforcement.

View post:

Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony

China toughens environment law to target polluters

Posted on by

Chinaon Thursday passed the first amendment to its environment protection law in 25 years, imposing tougher penalties on polluters after the government called for a war on pollution.

The changes approved by the standing committee of the National Peoples Congress (NPC), Chinas rubberstamp parliament, take effect on January 1, 2015 and come amid growing public discontent over pollution.

The revised law imposes harsher punishments (for) environmental wrongdoing, and has specific articles and provisions on tackling smog, making citizens more aware of environmental protection and protecting whistleblowers, the state-run Xinhua news agency said.

The law also stipulates up to 15 days detention for officials in enterprises that, among other violations, avoid environmental impact assessments and refuse to suspend production after being issued a ban, Xinhua said.

The new law stipulates that enterprises will be named and shamed for breaking environmental protection laws, it said.

Chinas decades-long economic boom has brought rising environmental problems, with large parts of the country repeatedly blanketed in thick smog and both waterways and land polluted.

Pollution has emerged as a driver of discontent with the government, sparking occasional protests.

Xinhua said the amendment marked the first change to the legislation in 25 years.

The amendment approved Thursday which also called on citizens to adopt a low-carbon and frugal lifestyle came after Premier Li Keqiang last month vowed to declare a war against pollution.

More:

China toughens environment law to target polluters

College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution

Posted on by

The United States Constitution. (ARCHIVES.GOV)

Two students at the University of Hawaii at Hilo are suing the school over alleged First Amendment violations after they were told by a campus official that they couldn't approach fellow students to hand out copies of the Constitution.

Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone, members of the campus chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal court, alleging that administrators violated their constitutional rights by stopping group members from passing out copies of the document during an outdoor event in January where student organizations had set up tables to distribute literature.

The students are being represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, the law firm that recently helped a student who was blocked last year from handing out copies of the Constitution win a $50,000 settlement against Modesto Junior College in California.

"So far this academic year, students have twice been prohibited from distributing the Constitution on a public campus, less than four months apart. That is absolutely unacceptable, said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is assisting with the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, an administrator told Burch and Vizzone that if they wanted to protest the school's policy, they could do so in the college's free speech zone, described by FIRE as a one-third acre area on the edge of campus.

The "free speech zone" at UH Hilo represents less than one percent of the college's total area and is muddy and prone to flooding, according to a FIRE news release.

The lawsuit also challenges a separate policy that reportedly requires students to request permission seven working days prior to engaging in "expressive activity" in two designated areas located in the central part of campus.

The First Amendment is not optional at public collegesits the law. Enforcing restrictive free speech zone policies that prevent students from passing out copies of the Constitution is impossible to justify," Lukianoff said in a statement.

The rest is here:

College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution

Softonic – Jitsi – Download

Posted on by

Jitsi is a free messenger client that supports most major protocols and even supports video and audio conversations.

Simply choose the IM protocol that you'd like to connect to from a selection that includes SIP, Google Talk, XMPP/Jabber, MSN or Windows Live Messenger, AIM, Bonjour, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger and Facebook chat. In the main window, you'll find all your personal contacts.

In the Jitsi chat window, you can exchange IM messages or initiate video or audio chats, including group chats. There are a limited number of emoticons and Jitsi keeps a history of your chats. Although the interface isn't particularly intuitive, the fact that you can initiate audio and video chats gives it a serious advantage over many slicker IM clients.

Note that this download link takes you to the nightly build page because Jitsi is being updated so regularly, that you can choose the latest version more easily.

Jitsi might not be quite as slick as other IM clients but is a serious alternative to classics like Miranda.

Note that this download link takes you to the nightly build page because Jitsi is being updated so regularly, that you can choose the latest version more easily

Link:

Softonic - Jitsi - Download

The Architecture of Open Source Applications: Jitsi

Posted on by

Jitsi is an application that allows people to make video and voice calls, share their desktops, and exchange files and messages. More importantly it allows people to do this over a number of different protocols, ranging from the standardized XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol) and SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) to proprietary ones like Yahoo! and Windows Live Messenger (MSN). It runs on Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OS X, Linux, and FreeBSD. It is written mostly in Java but it also contains parts written in native code. In this chapter, we'll look at Jitsi's OSGi-based architecture, see how it implements and manages protocols, and look back on what we've learned from building it.

The three most important constraints that we had to keep in mind when designing Jitsi (at the time called SIP Communicator) were multi-protocol support, cross-platform operation, and developer-friendliness.

From a developer's perspective, being multi-protocol comes down to having a common interface for all protocols. In other words, when a user sends a message, our graphical user interface needs to always call the same sendMessage method regardless of whether the currently selected protocol actually uses a method called sendXmppMessage or sendSipMsg.

The fact that most of our code is written in Java satisfies, to a large degree, our second constraint: cross-platform operation. Still, there are things that the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) does not support or does not do the way we'd like it to, such as capturing video from your webcam. Therefore, we need to use DirectShow on Windows, QTKit on Mac OS X, and Video for Linux 2 on Linux. Just as with protocols, the parts of the code that control video calls cannot be bothered with these details (they are complicated enough as it is).

Finally, being developer-friendly means that it should be easy for people to add new features. There are millions of people using VoIP today in thousands of different ways; various service providers and server vendors come up with different use cases and ideas about new features. We have to make sure that it is easy for them to use Jitsi the way they want. Someone who needs to add something new should have to read and understand only those parts of the project they are modifying or extending. Similarly, one person's changes should have as little impact as possible on everyone else's work.

To sum up, we needed an environment where different parts of the code are relatively independent from each other. It had to be possible to easily replace some parts depending on the operating system; have others, like protocols, run in parallel and yet act the same; and it had to be possible to completely rewrite any one of those parts and have the rest of the code work without any changes. Finally, we wanted the ability to easily switch parts on and off, as well as the ability to download plugins over the Internet to our list.

We briefly considered writing our own framework, but soon dropped the idea. We were itching to start writing VoIP and IM code as soon as possible, and spending a couple of months on a plugin framework didn't seem that exciting. Someone suggested OSGi, and it seemed to be the perfect fit.

People have written entire books about OSGi, so we're not going to go over everything the framework stands for. Instead we will only explain what it gives us and the way we use it in Jitsi.

Above everything else, OSGi is about modules. Features in OSGi applications are separated into bundles. An OSGi bundle is little more than a regular JAR file like the ones used to distribute Java libraries and applications. Jitsi is a collection of such bundles. There is one responsible for connecting to Windows Live Messenger, another one that does XMPP, yet another one that handles the GUI, and so on. All these bundles run together in an environment provided, in our case, by Apache Felix, an open source OSGi implementation.

All these modules need to work together. The GUI bundle needs to send messages via the protocol bundles, which in turn need to store them via the bundles handling message history. This is what OSGi services are for: they represent the part of a bundle that is visible to everyone else. An OSGi service is most often a group of Java interfaces that allow use of a specific functionality like logging, sending messages over the network, or retrieving the list of recent calls. The classes that actually implement the functionality are known as a service implementation. Most of them carry the name of the service interface they implement, with an "Impl" suffix at the end (e.g., ConfigurationServiceImpl). The OSGi framework allows developers to hide service implementations and make sure that they are never visible outside the bundle they are in. This way, other bundles can only use them through the service interfaces.

Follow this link:

The Architecture of Open Source Applications: Jitsi

Jitsi – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

Jitsi Original author(s) Emil Ivov Developer(s) Jitsi Team and Contributors Initial release 2003(2003) Stable release 2.4 (build.4997) (January7, 2014; 3 months ago(2014-01-07)) [] Preview release 2.5 (nightly) [] Development status Active Written in Java Operating system Linux, Mac OS X, Windows (all Java supported) Size 33 MB Windows[1] 23MB Mac OS X[2] 16MB GNU/Linux 60MB source code[3] Available in Asturian, English, French, German, Bulgarian, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Greek and 25 more Type Voice over Internet Protocol / instant messaging / videoconferencing License LGPL Website jitsi.org

Jitsi (formerly SIP Communicator) is a free and open source multiplatform[4]voice (VoIP), videoconferencing and instant messaging application for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. It supports several popular instant messaging and telephony protocols, including open recognised encryption protocols for chat (OTR) and voice/video/streaming and voice/video conferencing (SIP/RTP/SRTP/ZRTP), as well as built-in IPv6, NAT traversal and DNSSEC. Jitsi and its source code are released under the terms of the LGPL.[4]

Work on Jitsi (then SIP Communicator) started in 2003 in the context of a student project by Emil Ivov at the University of Strasbourg.[5] It was originally released as an example video phone in the JAIN-SIP stack and later spun off as a standalone project.[6]

Originally the project was mostly used as an experimentation tool because of its support for IPv6.[7][8] Through the years, as the project gathered members, it also added support for protocols other than SIP.

Jitsi has received support from various institutions such as the NLnet Foundation,[9][10] the University of Strasbourg and the Region of Alsace[11] and it has also had multiple participations in the Google Summer of Code program.[12][13]

In 2009, Emil Ivov founded the BlueJimp company which has employed some of Jitsi's main contributors[14][15] in order to offer professional support and development services[16] related to the project.

In 2011, after successfully adding support for Audio/Video communication over XMPPs Jingle extensions, the project was renamed to Jitsi since it was no longer "a SIP only Communicator".[17][18] This name originates from the Bulgarian "" (wires).[19]

Jitsi supports multiple operating systems, including Windows as well as Unix-like systems such as GNU/Linux, Mac OS X and BSD. An Android version is planned for Q2 2014.[20] It also includes:[21]

The following protocols are currently supported by Jitsi:[4]

Jitsi is mostly written in Java[26] which helps reuse most of the same code over the various operating systems it works on. Its GUI is based upon Swing. The project also uses native code for the implementation of platform specific tasks such as audio/video capture and rendering, IP address selection, and access to native popup notification systems such as Growl.

Follow this link:

Jitsi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jitsi – Business VoIP Phone Service | OnSIP

Posted on by

Unbeknownst to many people, there are a growing number of free stand-alone VoIP clients, some of which arent half bad. Today Im going to be doing an in-depth look at one of these free downloadable clients, Jitsi, which is described as an audio/video Internet phone and instant messenger that supports some of the most popular VoIP and instant messaging protocols such as SIP, Jabber, AIM/ICQ, MSN, etc

The list is extensive, but it had me at SIP and Jabber.

Jitsi, which is written mostly in Java, is a free and open source VoIP, and instant messaging application for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Its currently in alpha. Stable releases come out every so often while nightly builds are released several times a day. When appropriate, users are automatically prompted to download and install the latest build (or you can just tell it to do this all without asking).

What separates this application from others like it is the inclusion of enterprise VoIP features such as attended and blind call transfer, call recording, call encryption, conferencing, and video calls.

This version of the application looks and feels great. The main UI is simple and clean, the pop-up call handling screen is easy to use, and the instant messaging feature is handled nicely. Jitsi certainly aims to accomplish a lot. While you can almost expect a few glitches here and there, it is certainly worth trying out.

[ Relevant Sidenote: This review was conducted on a Macbook Pro. ]

As usual, I am going to do a quick walk through of how to setup OnSIP with Jitsi. A lot of these steps apply no matter which VoIP provider youre using so I noncustomers will also find this useful. Youre going to need your user credentials. They can be found in your OnSIP admin portal under users. Here is an example of the fields you will need:

Setting Up VoIP Calling

Open up Jitsi and select +Add New Account under File. You should see a screen pop up that looks like this:

View original post here:

Jitsi - Business VoIP Phone Service | OnSIP

Tor – Official Site

Posted on by

Tor prevents people from learning your location or browsing habits. Tor is for web browsers, instant messaging clients, and more. Tor is free and open source for Windows, Mac, Linux/Unix, and Android

Protect your privacy. Defend yourself against network surveillance and traffic analysis.

Tor is free software and an open network that helps you defend against traffic analysis, a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. Learn more about Tor

Tor protects you by bouncing your communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world: it prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, and it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location. Get involved with Tor

Live CD/USB operating system preconfigured to use Tor safely.

Tor for Google Android devices.

Tor Browser contains everything you need to safely browse the Internet.

Terminal (command line) application for monitoring and configuring Tor.

Site providing an overview of the Tor network.

Library for writing scripts and applications that interact with Tor.

See the original post here:

Tor - Official Site

Brock Pierce, Entrepreneur "FireSide Chat" @ CryptoCurrency Convention NYC – 4/9/14 – Video

Posted on by


Brock Pierce, Entrepreneur "FireSide Chat" @ CryptoCurrency Convention NYC - 4/9/14
Brock Pierce, Entrepreneur "FireSide Chat" with Teddy Dupay, Event Host @ CryptoCurrency Convention NYC - 4/9/14 Next Event to be held in London UK 2014! Fol...

By: CryptoCurrency Convention

Continued here:

Brock Pierce, Entrepreneur "FireSide Chat" @ CryptoCurrency Convention NYC - 4/9/14 - Video