Patriot Act Deadline Threatens to Splinter NSA Reformers

Posted on by

Provided by National Journal NSA reforms

Privacy advocates, facing an uphill battle in a Republican-controlled Congress next year, will have to make a difficult choice.

Some argue that their best shot to curb the National Security Agency's powers will be to kill core provisions of the USA Patriot Act altogether. But other reformers aren't ready to take the post-9/11 law hostage.

The debate over whether to let the Patriot Act provisions expire in June threatens to splinter the surveillance-reform coalition. If the tech industry, privacy groups, and reform-minded lawmakers can't coalesce around a strategy soon, they may have little hope of reining in the surveillance state.

And with outrage over the Snowden revelations fading and fear over the Islamic State rising, the push for reform appears to have already lost its momentum.

The NSA critics are still licking their wounds after Senate Republicans blocked the USA Freedom Act last week. The bill, authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, would have prohibited the government's carte blanche collection of U.S. phone metadatathe numbers and time stamps of phone calls but not their actual contents.

The bill would have also extended key provisions of the Patriot Act for two years, including the controversial Section 215, which the NSA uses to justify its phone record collection program. But that wasn't enough for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Marco Rubio, and most of the Republican caucus, who warned that the bill would have helped terrorists kill Americans.

"This is the worst possible time to be tying our hands behind our backs. The threat from ISIL is real," McConnell said in a statement, using an alternative name for the Islamic State.

With the Republicans winning the Senate, McConnell is about to become the majority leader, giving him control over the chamber's agenda. Given his aggressive last-minute whipping against the Freedom Act, privacy advocates say it is difficult to imagine him pushing anything more than cursory changes to the NSA.

But with so many ways to block legislation in Congress, it's always easier to stop something than to pass it. That reality has already led some privacy advocates to want to kill any reauthorization of the Patriot Act that doesn't include substantial reforms to the government's spying powersa viewpoint that has already spawned a #Sunset215 hashtag.

Visit link:

Patriot Act Deadline Threatens to Splinter NSA Reformers

Posted in NSA

NSA privacy director defends agency's surveillance

Posted on by

The U.S. National Security Agencys surveillance programs are legal and under close scrutiny by other parts of the government, the agencys internal privacy watchdog said Monday in an online Q&A.

NSA surveillance and data collection programs conform to the U.S. Constitution, Rebecca Richards, the agencys first civil liberties and privacy director, wrote during an hour-plus Q&A on Tumblr.

The NSA operates under rules that ensure that its activities fall within the parameters of the Constitution, Richards wrote when asked why she believes the surveillance programs are constitutional.

The oversight regime governing NSA is extensive, spanning all three branches of government, she added. The fact that NSA created my job highlights the value and importance NSA leadership places on privacy and civil liberties protections.

Critics have said some NSA surveillance programs violate the Constitutions Fourth Amendment, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

One Q&A participant asked if U.S. residents fears of being discreetly spied on are merited.

The fears are not merited, Richards wrote. NSA is a foreign intelligence agency, she wrote. Our mission is to collect critical intelligence on foreign powers or their agents necessary to defend the country.

U.S. law requires that the NSA, when targeting a U.S. citizen for foreign intelligence purposes, to obtain a court order based on a finding of probable cause to believe the intended target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, she added.

One participant paraphrased Benjamin Franklin to Richards: He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. The questioner then asked whether the NSAs erosion of the Fourth Amendment is fair and righteous, in regard to the principles on which the United States were founded?

Richards again defended the NSA: Intelligence agencies, just like other government agencies, have a responsibility to protect privacy and civil liberties, she wrote. In the course of our operations, we take great care to protect and safeguard personal privacy.

See the article here:

NSA privacy director defends agency's surveillance

Posted in NSA

Shock: The NSAs live Q&A is totally devoid of substance

Posted on by

Taking a page from reddit's ask-me-anything feature and other live Q&A sessions, the country's most popular spies are burnishing their image today with a little direct outreach.

On Tumblr, Rebecca Richards the National Security Agency's civil liberties and privacy officer is tossing out casual, Internetty answers to mostly softball questions like "What is your first priority as Privacy Director?" and "What is involved in your typical day of work?"

The answers consist mainly of abstract buzzwords like "protect and safeguard personal privacy" without going into specifics.

The chat, if you can call it that, is only one hour long and was first promoted by the NSA about six hours ago. It would've been easy to miss unless you already follow the NSA closely. So far, Richards hasn't addressed last week's USA Freedom Act vote in Congress, or any other substantive policy issues which left some visibly frustrated over the event.

Richards has taken one question from Gellman and one from another journalist, but didn't directly address the first and offered few specifics on the second.

Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington Post.

Follow this link:

Shock: The NSAs live Q&A is totally devoid of substance

Posted in NSA

U.S. Said to Cite Islamic State Fight to Block UN Spying Text

Posted on by

The U.S. cited the threat posed by Islamic State to avert a United Nations condemnation of collecting metadata in an anti-surveillance resolution backed by Germany and Brazil, diplomats said.

The two countries are seeking a decision today in the General Assemblys human rights committee on a non-binding resolution on the loss of privacy from surveillance and mass collection of metadata, such as the bulk records of phone calls that are gathered by the U.S. National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies.

The Obama administration maintained that such intelligence-gathering is needed to fight the Sunni extremists in Iraq and Syria and address the threat of foreign fighters coming home to stage terrorist attacks in Europe or the U.S., said two UN diplomats involved in the negotiations who asked not to be named commenting on private consultations.

The U.S. was backed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K., its fellow members in an intelligence cooperation agreement known as the Five Eyes. The group succeeded in softening the resolution, removing language that called the collection of metadata a highly intrusive act.

The anti-spying resolution at the UN is a joint Brazilian and German initiative begun last year after the disclosure that the NSA may have tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkels mobile phone and eavesdropped on Brazilian President Dilma Rousseffs private communications.

While the General Assembly adopted the text by consensus last year and is expected to do the same with todays version, the U.S. has shifted from the low-key approach it took a year ago to minimize the political backlash after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden disclosed U.S. surveillance at home and abroad, diplomats said.

Unlike last year, when American negotiators largely left the voicing of objections to allies, the U.S. directly expressed concerns, they said.

Metadata include the dates and time stamps of communications, such as how long calls lasted, when and where an e-mail account was accessed, or which websites were visited and when, without disclosing the contents of the communications.

The advance of Islamic State militants has eclipsed the global debate over U.S. spying at home and overseas, even in Germany, which is a member of the U.S.-led coalition against the extremists. The two diplomats said that may be what gave the U.S. room to be more forceful in negotiations.

A third UN diplomat said the U.S. may have shifted its negotiating tactics because of a separate provision in the draft resolution that says governments should abide by international human rights obligations when they require third parties, including companies, to disclose personal data.

See original here:

U.S. Said to Cite Islamic State Fight to Block UN Spying Text

Posted in NSA

Private Members’ Business | Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 3) Bill 2014 – Video

Posted on by


Private Members #39; Business | Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 3) Bill 2014
Deputy ine Collins speaking in Private Members #39; Business on the Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution, November 2014.

By: Aine Collins TD

Link:

Private Members' Business | Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 3) Bill 2014 - Video

The Fourth Amendment | Nwo Report

Posted on by

Family tased, assaulted, pepper sprayed

A court in Missouri has ruled a raid staged against a homeschooling family in 2011 violated their constitutional rights.

Police entered the home of Jason and Laura Hagan without a search warrant. The couple were shot with tasers and Laura Hagan was slapped in the face by a police officer. Police also threatened to shoot the family dog when the couple refused to cooperate with social service workers. Pepper spray was also used on the couple.

The Hagans were charged with child endangerment and resisting arrest following a previous visit by state officials who claimed their home was messy. The family complied with a first inspection but refused a second, resulting in the police raid.

The Hagans lost custody of their children for months following the raid. The children witnessed the police assault on their parents.

The court ruled the police raid was unconstitutional. The court will not allow [an] exception to sanction warrantless entry into a private residence by pepper spray and Taser. If the officer had a warrant in hand and such force was necessary, that is a different story, but those are not the facts of this case, the court stated.

The Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a familys right to privacy and the governments need to enforce the law, a report by the Home School Legal Defense Association states. In most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and they must provide real evidence to support that need.

This rule applies to all government agents. Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment.

All too often, law enforcement officers and child-welfare workers act as if the Fourth Amendment does not apply to CPS investigations. They are wrong. The Fourth Amendment is a legal shield that protects people from exactly the kind of mistreatment the Hagans endured.

Continue reading here:

The Fourth Amendment | Nwo Report

Polson editor wants charges dismissed

Posted on by

An attorney has filed a motion to dismiss all charges stemming from the arrest of the Lake County Leader editor on Oct. 1 while he was taking photographs of an accident on Montana 35.

Editor Vince Lovato, of Polson, was charged with resisting arrest, obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. An omnibus hearing is scheduled Monday morning.

Lovatos attorney, Mike Meloy of Helena, filed the motion to dismiss Nov. 6 on the basis of his clients First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

Meloy claims that Lovato, as a photographer, had a right to record, through his photographs, the actions of the police officer, the accident scene and the driver of the vehicle.

Meloy alleged that the arresting officer, Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Anthony Isbell, had no probable cause to make a warrantless arrest and he arrested the defendant for the sole purpose of preventing him from exercising this well-settled constitutional right.

In addition, Meloy said there was no yellow crime scene tape nor any other visible boundaries demarking an investigation site, and that at no time did anyone advise the defendant that he had entered a crime scene.

Deputy Lake County Attorney James Lapotka, in the states response to the motion to dismiss filed Nov. 21, said that the motion must be denied because there is probable cause to charge and arrest the defendant for obstruction of justice and even if there were not, dismissal of the case is not an appropriate remedy.

Lapotka argues that officers on scene were still trying to evaluate the danger of a leak from a truck involved in the accident a diesel cargo tanker hauling hazardous flammable material that was leaking brake fluid when emergency vehicles arrived. The tanker had been hit head-on by an allegedly drunk woman driving a Toyota Camry on Montana 35 northeast of Polson that afternoon.

Lapotka states that emergency personnel were working to extricate the drunk driver and ensure there was no leak of potentially hazardous material onto the roadway creating a risk to the public and to Flathead Lake. He also says that the stability of the dangerous tanker had yet to be determined and the drunk drivers injuries had yet to be assessed.

The states response continues, Trooper Isbell noticed several items of evidence inside the drunk drivers vehicle and was attempting to control the scene, preserve evidence, protect public and environmental safety and assist with an ongoing medical emergency. Officers from the Montana Highway Patrol and Lake County Sheriffs Office had blocked traffic on the highway and parked patrol cars with flashing lights on the road to create a perimeter.

See more here:

Polson editor wants charges dismissed

NRA News Ginny Simone Reporting | Servin’ Up the Second Amendment – Video

Posted on by


NRA News Ginny Simone Reporting | Servin #39; Up the Second Amendment
Good food, friendly service and a huge helping of freedom that #39;s what they #39;re dishing up at Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado. It #39;s not about politics, it #39;s a way of life,...

By: NRA

Original post:

NRA News Ginny Simone Reporting | Servin' Up the Second Amendment - Video

NEW The Second Amendment Show

Posted on by

Press Release

On 10/3/2014, The State of New York Department of State Committee on Open Government issued a four page advisory opinion. The Committee's opinion goes against Governor Cuomo's refusal to release NYSAFE Act information requested in FOIL filings

October 4, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Albany, NY The Committee on Open Government dealt a significant blow to Governor Cuomo and the New York State Police through their October 3, 2014 Advisory Opinion that there is no legal basis for the refusal to release aggregate statistical information about the assault weapon registry. This on the same day that three, powerful supporters of the Second Amendment served the Governor and the NYS Police with Petitions to demand production of information in response to earlier demands made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act during the past eight months. The groups filing suit are Gun Owners of America, the Shooters Committee for Political Education (SCOPE), and Bill Robinson (host of the syndicated Second Amendment Radio Show).

The Committee's Advisory Opinion follows eight months of work by these groups to get responses to this and other requests related to the 2013 SAFE Act. Although as a matter of procedure, it is generally the state agency that sends copies of the agency appeal papers to the Committee, the groups submitted its own copies to make sure that the Committee was informed of the difficulties they were experiencing.

The 4-page Advisory Opinion by the Committee could not be more clear: it is our opinion that disclosure of aggregate data or that which can be derived from the collected records and reported without identification of individual licensees is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law.

We are thrilled with the Opinion of the Committee on Open Government, said Bill Robinson, whose weekly radio show is heard across New York from WYSL AM1040. The work of the independent Committee on Open Government is particularly vital in a state like New York where the Governor says transparency' but then hides from basic questions.

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of the national organization Gun Owners of America pointed out, Connecticut and Colorado released their registration information promptly upon deadline. It has been amazing to think that a state like New York has forced us to undertake so much legal work to try to gain such basic information. Gun Owners of America has more than 750,000 members across the U.S. , including in New York .

The FOILs submitted by SCOPE originated with 33 of its members in Monroe County , who wanted to ask a list of questions around the State Police Field Guide and website. Stephen J. Aldstadt, the statewide President of SCOPE, added, The timing of the Opinion of the Committee on Open Government relative to our filing and service of the court cases to enforce our requests could not be more appreciated. It will underscore for the Supreme Court the appropriateness of our requests.

Read the original:

NEW The Second Amendment Show

Judge Orders Law Tribune Not To Publish Story

Posted on by

In a ruling that is drawing sharp criticism from free-speech advocates, a Superior Court judge has ordered the Connecticut Law Tribune not to publish a story about a child custody case.

Judge Stephen Frazzini on Monday granted a motion filed in New Britain Superior Court by the mother of the three children involved in the case that sought to stop the Law Tribune from running the story.

Daniel J. Klau, the lawyer representing the Law Tribune, objected to the mother's motion, saying a prior restraint on the publication was a violation of the First Amendment. The information for the story, he said, was lawfully obtained by the Tribune. He declined to elaborate about the information.

"Prohibiting the publication of a news story is the very essence of censorship," Klau said. On Tuesday, he filed a motion asking the state's appellate court to stay the lower court's injunction.

"We certainly hope that the judges review the motion immediately and overturn the order or, at a bare minimum, grant us an immediate hearing in the appellate court next week, if not earlier," Klau said.

Klau said the judge's ruling, which Frazzini made orally from the bench Monday, and a transcript of the proceedings were sealed from public view as of Tuesday. He said he was barred from speaking about specifics of the judge's ruling, even with his own client. The Connecticut Law Tribune is owned by American Lawyer Media.

In an email statement Tuesday, Sandra Staub, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, called the ruling "alarming" and an infringement on free speech.

"The courts are supposed to protect speech, not prohibit it," Staub said. "Prior restraint is forbidden under the U.S. Constitution, with extremely narrow exceptions that do not apply in this case, and in our view is absolutely prohibited by the Connecticut Constitution."

A widely recognized exception is in cases that involve national security.

In a story on the Law Tribune's website posted Tuesday, Thomas B. Scheffey wrote that Monday's proceedings were held in juvenile court where the hearings are not usually open to the public.

The rest is here:

Judge Orders Law Tribune Not To Publish Story

First Amendment protects student's choice to display Confederate flag

Posted on by

It has been almost 150 years since the tragedies of the Civil War, since the enraged Confederacy was quelled by prolonged Union force and since over 200,000 individuals lost their lives over political and social disagreement.

Recently, however, a Purdue student has reawakened the entrenched social memory of Americas bleak history of racism and inequality by the displaying of a Confederate flag in the upper window of his residence.

For some, the Confederate flag is a sign of southern pride and for others its a retired relic merely a piece of irrelevant history. However, most see it as a sign of oppression, servitude, segregation and savage brutality.

Yet, according to Rick Walker, code enforcement supervisor of West Lafayette Police Departments neighborhood resource team, There was no violation of ordinance or law, and while a sensitive issue, the resident was within his right to display it.

I was able to speak with one of the residents at the house, and he understood the concerns of some in the neighborhood and was sensitive to that. As a result, the flag is no longer visible, said Walker.

Regardless of constitutional right, many still find it offensive as a sign of white supremacy and racial oppression.

For many, Confederate symbolism represents a way to venerate ancestors who fought in the Civil War or admiration for the skills and bravery of the Confederate officers and soldiers, said Robert E. May, professor of American history at Purdue. But I would claim knowledge of what the Confederate flag represented in its day; it was the rallying symbol of a nation dedicated to the preservation of slavery in North America.

The south was fighting for a nation designed to perpetuate slavery forever in the United States and possibly extend it southward into Latin America, said May. Displaying their flag is an insult not only to African Americans but also to all Americans who believe in human equality.

Lets not start unraveling our Union memorabilia just yet. Although Union President Abraham Lincoln is often lionized as the champion of modern day racial equality, that is unfortunately not the case.

For instance, the Emancipation Proclamation wasnt a gesture of Lincolns compassion for those enslaved. As much as Lincoln hated the institution of slavery, he didnt see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nations four million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two.

See more here:

First Amendment protects student's choice to display Confederate flag

The Supreme Court Is About to Make a Big Decision About Facebook Free Speech

Posted on by

TIME Tech legal The Supreme Court Is About to Make a Big Decision About Facebook Free Speech Till JacketGetty Images/Photononstop RM The case could have big implications for how we use social media

The Supreme Court on Monday will consider whether violent language posted on social media is covered by the First Amendments protection of free speech.

The case, Elonis v. United States, hinges around the question of whether a Facebook message can be considered a true threat, or a threat a reasonable person would determine to be real. That would be an important distinction, because true threats dont get First Amendment coverage. But it wont be an easy problem to solve: While it can be easy to call a threat true if its given verbally, making that call gets harder when threats are posted online, where they lack the context, tone and other indicators of intent present in verbal communication. Its also arguably easier to make threats online, especially if its done anonymously.

What happened?

A lower court had sentenced Pennsylvania man Anthony Elonis to about four years in federal prison over several Facebook posts threatening his estranged wife. The posts included, among other things, raps about slitting his wifes throat and about how her protection order against him wouldnt be enough to stop a bullet.

A sample:

Theres one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. Im not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.

But how is that not a true threat?

Elonis contends his posts werent a threat to his wife but rather a therapeutic form of expression. Its commonly accepted that violent images are often part of rap music and other media, and artistic expression is protected under the First Amendment, explaining Elonis legal strategy. Still, the issue of whether Elonis had the intent to threaten is not necessary for a threat to be deemed a true threat. That requires only for a reasonable person to believe a threat is authentic.

The dividing line here is whether were judging the threat based on the intent of the speaker, or on the reaction of the people who read it and wouldve felt threatened. Thats really the key question, said William McGeveran, a law professor at the University of Minnesota.

Read more from the original source:

The Supreme Court Is About to Make a Big Decision About Facebook Free Speech

086 PRIVACY InfoSec Bitcoin CryptoCurrency Philosophy Anarchy Anonymous Naughty Sexy Kitty Cat Tech – Video

Posted on by


086 PRIVACY InfoSec Bitcoin CryptoCurrency Philosophy Anarchy Anonymous Naughty Sexy Kitty Cat Tech
http://www.twitter.com/VanosEnigmA + http://www.facebook.com/VanosEnigma http://www.facebook.com/JCCVWJusticeCourtComedyInVirtualWorlds https://www.facebook.com/pages/CCBP-Canari...

By: VanosEnigmA Enigmaisland

Originally posted here:

086 PRIVACY InfoSec Bitcoin CryptoCurrency Philosophy Anarchy Anonymous Naughty Sexy Kitty Cat Tech - Video