Georgia Confirms NATO Bid: Tbilisi seeks NATO membership despite Russian opposition
Georgian Defence Minister Irakli Alasania said he was grateful for the terms offered to Georgia during a recent NATO summit in Wales and appreciated German involvement to integrate Georgia...
By: UKRAINE TODAY
See the original post here:
Georgia Confirms NATO Bid: Tbilisi seeks NATO membership despite Russian opposition - Video
Russia Probes NATO Air Defences: Kremlin jets launch provocative incursions across Europe
NATO aircraft are continuing to track Russian strategic bombers flying over the Atlantic and Black Sea and sorties of Russian fighters over the Baltic in what the 28-nation security bloc described...
By: UKRAINE TODAY
See the article here:
Russia Probes NATO Air Defences: Kremlin jets launch provocative incursions across Europe - Video
November 2 2014 Breaking News NATO Wake up call Russian threat Poland Prepares for Russian Invasion
November 2 2014 Breaking News NATO Wake up call Russian threat Poland Prepares for Russian Invasion ...
By: U2Bbornagain
See the original post here:
Lithuania: Iron Sword NATO drills get underway
VideoID: 20141103-014 W/S Soldiers M/S Soldiers taking position W/S Soldiers lined up M/S US soldiers M/S Soldiers holding Lithuanian, German, Hungarian, Luxembourg, US, UK flags M/S Soldiers.
By: RuptlyTV
Link:
Victorious Lawsuit Against The NSA
In a WND TV interview, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, talks about his victorious lawsuit against portions of the NSA spying program, and what we can expect in the near future.
By: WNDTV
Read more:
Brazil Builds Internet Cable to Portugal to Avoid NSA Surveillance!
http://www.undergroundworldnews.com Brazil is building a cable across the Atlantic to escape the reach of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The move is one of many ways the Brazilian...
By: DAHBOO77
Read this article:
Brazil Builds Internet Cable to Portugal to Avoid NSA Surveillance! - Video
zdzislaw nsa facebook anon (e-8x) | low voices
By: Trelotrick IceNine
Read more from the original source:
A federal appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday in a case challenging the NSA's vast phone data collection program the next act in the legal battle pitting the agency's antiterrorism efforts against the privacy rights of Americans.
Privacy advocates head into the arguments with a lower court victory in hand: A judge in Washington ruled in their favor in December, calling the technology to gather and analyze the phone records "almost Orwellian."
The lawsuit brought by conservative activist Larry Klayman is one of several filed after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the data collection program a leak that has opened the way for judges to scrutinize the agency's surveillance activities, and could propel the issue to the Supreme Court.
"Whatever one thinks of Snowden, we're only here because of him," said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at American University.
The National Security Agency, which is headquartered at Fort Meade, says it mines "telephony metadata" the times of calls, numbers dialed and the duration of conversations in search of links between people making calls in the United States and suspected terrorists.
The government says the technique respects Americans' constitutional right to privacy because the records already have been handed over to phone companies, and they do not include the contents of the conversations.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed briefs in support of Klayman. Klayman said the NSA's "unconstitional acts affect all segments of society."
"This case is unique in that both conservatives and liberals alike have joined to represent the American people," Klayman said in a statement.
The NSA referred questions about the case to the Justice Department. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
U.S. law enforcement, police and spies alike have raced to find ways to use information shed by criminals and terrorists as they move through the digital world.
Go here to see the original:
PALO ALTO, Calif. The director of the National Security Agency said Monday that he understands why Silicon Valley companies have beefed up security to keep out government agencies, including his own.
The statement, during a speech by Adm. Michael Rogers at Stanford University, marked a small olive branch amid rising tension between technology companies and Washington following disclosures about the extent of electronic surveillance by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Adm. Rogers said technology companies took steps to enhance encryption in order to assure consumers that their personal data is safe from prying government eyes. In addition, some companies felt embarrassed after slides leaked by Snowden suggested the companies had cooperated with U.S. spies.
Adm. Rogers, who took over the NSA in April, has been charged with repairing those relations.
In the most recent clash, Apple and Google in September said they would no longer be able to unlock smartphones, even if ordered by a court, for law enforcement. James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Robert Hannigan, head of the U.K. equivalent of the NSA, said the moves are enabling criminals.
Im not one who jumps up and down and says either side is fundamentally wrong, Adm. Rogers said in response to a reporters question Monday. I understand what drives each side to their viewpoint.
Still, Adm. Rogers said he wondered if there might be some mechanism that would allow the government to circumvent the encryption schemes in special circumstances. It was unclear if he endorsed such a policy.
The NSA is trying to mend bridges in Silicon Valley partly out of necessity. The agency relies on young math and computer science experts to power its intelligence operation. Many of those techie kids go to Stanford and then work at technology companies.
Adm. Rogers, whose visit was part recruiting pitch, acknowledged he cant pay these students as much as Facebook or Twitter , but he can offer them something thats bigger than you are.
There are also the cool spy toys. Were going to give you the opportunity to do stuff you cant legally do anywhere else, he said.
See the original post:
Nevermind the surveillance spat between the US government and the tech titans of Silicon Valley: NSA Director Mike Rogers wants to mend fences.
National Security Agency director Adm. Michael Rogers tells Stanford why its students should consider a career with the NSA. Seth Rosenblatt/CNET
STANFORD, Calif. -- The director of the National Security Agency has a message for Silicon Valley: We come in peace.
Adm. Michael Rogers visited the home of most of the world's dominant tech firms for the second time in the seven months since he took the reins of the NSA from longtime leader Gen. Keith Alexander. In his pitch to around 100 professors, students and reporters gathered to hear him answer questions at Stanford's Encina Hall, he promised attendees he would be in the Valley twice a year and implored potential hires that working at the NSA offered rewards that no benefits package from Google or Apple could match.
He said there was more to what the NSA offered than patriotically serving the US. "We're going to give you the opportunity to do some neat stuff you can't do anywhere else," he said. "We're going to give you responsibility early, that's part of our culture."
Rogers' appeal comes at a time of high tension between Silicon Valley and the US government. Documents first leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden in June 2013 have led to a cascading series of spying revelations that have soured governmental relationships here.
Tech firms responded by tightening and accelerating their implementation of encryption to prevent customer data from being spied on without a warrant. Google and Yahoo said last summer they are working on tools to encrypt webmail, which is notoriously difficult to obfuscate. Most recently, Apple and Google announced in September that data stored on their mobile operating systems, which power the vast majority of smartphones around the world, will be encrypted by default.
Government agencies have responded by accusing tech firms of helping criminals and terrorists by embracing advanced encryption standards. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey said in October tech firms should build encryption with backdoors for the US government, while today the new director of Britain's top spy agency, Government Communications Headquarters, said that Internet technologies are used as "command-and-control networks of choice" for the bad guys.
Rogers took a less strident tone, acknowledging that tech firms might have good reasons for responding the way that they have.
"It doesn't do us any good to villainize either side of this argument," Rogers said to a smaller group of reporters and Stanford students after the question-and-answer session had ended. "Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about what is appropriate and not appropriate," he said.
Read more:
National Security Agency director Mike Rogers speaks at Stanford University, Monday, Nov. 3, 2014, in Stanford, Calif. Rogers told professors and students that U.S. intelligence is depending on Silicon Valley innovation for technologies that strengthen the Internet and staff to provide national cybersecurity. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) ( Marcio Jose Sanchez )
STANFORD -- U.S. intelligence depends on Silicon Valley innovation for technologies that strengthen the Internet and staff to provide national cybersecurity, National Security Agency director Mike Rogers told Stanford University professors and students on Monday.
While the federal government is never going to match Silicon Valley salaries, "we are going to give you the opportunity to do some neat stuff, things you probably aren't going to be able to do anywhere else," Rogers said.
Rogers, who also heads up U.S. Cyber Command, said he visits the region at least every six months to tap into local talent and stay attuned to the latest innovations.
Audience members including cryptographer Whitfield Diffie, center, listen to NSA Chief Mike Rogers at Stanford University, Monday, Nov. 3, 2014, in Stanford, Calif. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) ( Marcio Jose Sanchez )
During a question and answer session, Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, asked Rogers how he can explain disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that the agency secretly broke into communications on Yahoo and Google overseas.
Rogers said his agency does not violate U.S. privacy laws here or abroad working with partner intelligence agencies.
"I'm comfortable with what we do, with our partners," he said.
Mark Jaycox, an Electronic Frontier Foundation legislative analyst who watched the speech versus a webstream, said Rogers, who was sworn in in April, has not addressed most privacy concerns raised in recent years.
"Unfortunately, Admiral Rogers hasn't yet engaged on many of the NSA's more egregious activities like disrupting national standards for encryption or the NSA's hacking of American companies' internal databases."
Continue reading here:
Further Reading On Tuesday, three judges at one of the nations most powerful appellate courts will hear oral arguments in the only legal challenge to result in a judicial order against the National Security Agencys (NSA) vast telephone metadata collection program. That order was put on hold pending the governments appeal in this case.
The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals could overturn last years unusual lower court ruling that ordered an end to the program, or the court could confirm it.
The lawsuit, known as Klayman et al v. Obama et al, pits a longstanding conservative lawyer, Larry Klayman, against the American government and its intelligence apparatus. If Klayman wins, the suit is likely to be eventually appealed further to the Supreme Court.
Klayman filed his federal lawsuit at the District of Columbia District Court on June 6, 2013, the day after the first disclosures from the Snowden leaks were published. The very first story revealed that Verizon had been routinely handing over all metadata on its customers to the NSA. And as a Verizon customer, Klayman argued that his constitutional rights were violated as the result of such data handover, not to mentionthe rights of all other Verizon customers.
The government relied primarily, as it has done numerous times in similar cases, on a 1979 Supreme Court decision known as Smith v. Maryland. That case famously established the "third-party doctrine," holding that information (such as call metadata) disclosed to a third party (like Verizon) cannot be private as it was by definition shared with that third party. Therefore, the argument goes, it can be disclosed to the government without any violation of privacy.
ButJudge Richard Leon, a Republican appointee, agreed with Klaymans argument. He wrote in a December 16, 2013 memorandum opinion:
Indeed, the question in this case can more properly be styled as follows: when do present-day circumstancesthe evolutions in the Government's surveillance capabilities, citizens' phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companiesbecome so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court 34 years ago that a precedent like Smith simply does not apply? The answer, unfortunately for the government, is now.
In sum, the Smith pen register and the ongoing NSA Bulk Telephony Metadata Program have so many significant distinctions between them that I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones.
Judge Leon ordered the government to immediately halt the Bulk Telephony Metadata Program and to destroy "any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection program."But, he noted, "in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this caseand the novelty of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal."
See original here:
A top appeals court to hear why NSA metadata spying should stay or go
Fingerprints: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment.
Court rules fingerprints have no fifth amendment right. What does this mean for the rest of our biometric data? .
By: TheRiverMersey
See the original post here:
Last week, there was a lot of press coverage about a Virginia court ruling on how the Fifth Amendment applies to bypassing a smart phone passcode. The ruling hasnt been available before today, but here it is: Commonwealth v. Baust, via Marcia Hofmann. Its a short opinion, just five pages, so its a quick read. Unfortunately, though, the opinion doesnt address the really important issue raised by compelled decryption: Whether the government can force the defendant to enter in the passcode. Its not the courts fault that the opinion didnt reach that, to be clear. The government never asked for an order compelling the defendant to do that, so the court didnt decide it. Heres a quick rundown of the facts, the law, and my reaction.
The defendant has been charged with assaulting a woman. There is reason to believe that the defendant videotaped the assault and that there is a copy of the video on the defendants passcode-protected smart phone. The state wants the defendant to be ordered either to disclose his passcode so the police can enter in the passcode to unlock the phone themselves, or else to give up his fingerprint to unlock the phone directly using the phones fingerprint sensor.
The court reaches a split ruling. First, there is no Fifth Amendment problem with forcing the defendant to provide his fingerprint. Second, the defendant cannot be forced to tell the government his passcode because that would be forcing the defendant to disclose the contents of his own mind. Most importantly, the court rules that the foregone conclusion doctrine doesnt apply because the police dont know the passcode:
Contrary to the Commonwealths assertion, the password is not a foregone conclusion because it is not known outside of Defendants mind. Unlike a document or tangible thing, such as an unencrypted copy of the footage itself, if the password was a foregone conclusion, the Commonwealth would not need to compel Defendant to produce it because they would already know it.
In dicta, the Court adds that the defendant could not be compelled to hand over a decrypted version of the video believed to be on his phone. Thats true because it is not a foregone conclusion that the video exists or is on the phone. The defendant cant be forced to effectively testify as to that by producing a decrypted version of the video.
This is just a state court trial ruling, not an appellate decision. So its interesting more for its reasoning than its precedential value. With that said, here are some thoughts on the reasoning of the case.
First, the courts ruling on divulging a fingerprint is easy. Theres obviously no Fifth Amendment problem with that. On the governments request for the passcode, the opinion is frustrating because the governments request was poorly framed. In this case, the government doesnt need to know the defendants passcode. It only needs to bypass the passcode gate, either through the fingerprint or by having the passcode entered in by the defendant. If the government couldnt get into the phone with the fingerprint, then, the sensible request would be for an order to have the defendant enter in the code rather than an order disclosing it to the government. But the government didnt ask for that: Instead it asked for an order that the defendant tell them his passcode.
Whats the difference? Having the defendant enter in his passcode would minimize the Fifth Amendment implications of the compelled compliance, as it would not involve disclosing the potentially incriminating evidence of the passcode itself. The passcode itself could be independently incriminating, at least in some cases. Imagine a conspiracy case in which members of the conspiracy use a common passcode. Proof that a suspect used that exact passcode on his own phone would be incriminating evidence, as it could help to show membership in the conspiracy.
Because the passcode itself could be incriminating, the smart way to limit the Fifth Amendment problem is for the government to ask for an order compelling the target to enter in the passcode rather than to divulge it to the police. That way, the government gets the unlocked phone but never gets the passcode. If the defendant has to enter in the passcode rather than tell it to the police, the testimonial aspect of complying would only be admitting knowledge of the passcode, which would very likely be a foregone conclusion in a case where the phone is used heavily by that person. But the government didnt ask for that here, so the court didnt consider how the Fifth Amendment would apply in such circumstances.
Notably, the court does address in dicta whether it would be incriminating for the defendant to hand over the unencrypted video believed to be on the phone. But forcing the defendant to hand over the unencrypted video is quite different from having him enter in the passcode to unlock the phone. Being forced to enter in the passcode to unlock the phone amounts to being forced to say, I know the passcode for this phone. On the other hand, as the court recognized, being forced to produce the unencrypted video amounts to being forced to say much more, such as I admit that the video exists; I admit that this is the video; I know where that video is; and I admit that I know what video youre talking about. Being forced to produce the video raises a host of Fifth Amendment issues that merely entering in the passcode does not.
Originally posted here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment and smart phones
A person suspected of a crime cannot be compelled to divulge to authorities the passcode that would unlock his smartphone. To allow this would be a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
But a fingerprint doesn't share those same protections. At least according to a recent ruling from a Circuit Court judge in Virginia, who found that compelling a suspect to unlock his fingerprint-protected smartphone is just fine and dandy.
There's some logic here, but it's pretty badly flawed. The thinking behind the decision: The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that an individual cannot be forced to testify against himself. As such, compelling someone to fork over a smartphone's passcode -- which would amount to testimony -- would violate the Fifth Amendment.
But a fingerprint, the judge said, is another story. It's more like a key, which the law has long allowed authorities to obtain from a criminal suspect.
While one can understand the legal distinction that forms the basis for the ruling, it doesn't long hold up under scrutiny.
The Fifth Amendment states, in part: "No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This is the right that people are invoking when they refuse to testify on the grounds that they may incriminate themselves.
So legally, a passcode is a kind of testimony, but a key isn't.
Which is fine as far as it goes. But this is exactly where the judge went wrong.
A fingerprint can be akin to a key -- or not. In the matter at hand, what it is, in effect, is a replacement for a passcode, which is information that used to be inside the user's head. If we'd once unlocked our phones with physical keys -- like those that open a door or start the car -- the reasoning would make sense, as the fingerprint would be a replacement for same.
But that's simply not the case. We used to unlock our phones with information in our heads. And that information was protected by the Fifth Amendment. One's fingerprint, simply a replacement for the old memorized pass code, ought reasonably be afforded that same protection.
Read the original here:
Editorial: Applying the Fifth Amendment in the era of smartphones
04 November 2014
The rate of goods and services tax (GST) on tourism services in the Maldives increased to 12 percent from November 1, 2014.
The change was introduced through the First Amendment to the GST Act (Law Number 6/2014). As a result of the change, persons who are required to file GST returns quarterly must comply with special reporting requirements.
In addition, in a last minute amendment published on October 27, 2014, authorities in the Maldives intend to further amend the GST Act to provide that the rate only applies to goods and services supplied exclusively to tourists. Goods and services subject to the change listed as tourism services in the law include supplies by shops, diving schools, spas, water sports facilities, and other such facilities in tourist resorts, tourist hotels, guest houses, picnic islands, tourist vessels, and yacht marinas authorized by the Tourism Ministry.
Alongside the rate increase, the Maldives has also revoked the Tourism Tax a USD8 per night charge on accommodation also from November 1, through the Fifth Amendment to the Maldives Tourism Act (Law Number 5/2014) of February 6, 2014.
The last minute amendment also adds to the list of tourism services supplies of goods and services to tourists by domestic air transportation service providers. It clarifies also that the term "tourists" refers to persons entering the Maldives under a tourist visa issued under the Maldives Immigration Act.
The increase is part of a package of measures intended to generate higher revenues for the islands. The rate on tourism services was 3.5 percent from December 31, 2011, when the GST regime was first introduced; 6 percent from January 1, 2012; and 8 percent from January 1, 2013. Other measures to broaden the GST base have included the introduction of GST on telecom services since May 1, 2014. From this date, GST was also imposed, also at a rate of six percent, to sales of immovable property. The leasing of immovable property remains exempt.
Originally posted here:
Fourth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.
Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?
The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.
The full text of the amendment is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Continued here:
Rachel Maddow: Joni Ernst has #39;Second Amendment Remedies #39; Too!
From The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. Reich-Wing Watch: "Fighting Despotism, Saving Democracy" Reich-Winger (adj.): an individual who #39;s views are so far-right that they are ideologically...
By: Reich-Wing Watch
Go here to see the original:
Rachel Maddow: Joni Ernst has 'Second Amendment Remedies' Too! - Video
The Second Amendment Rules - Shotguns, Rifles Pistols
The Second Amendment Rules - Shotguns, Rifles Pistols Overview: This was my first two times ever shooting and holding a gun in my life. Sure I #39;ve gone pain...
By: The Tyonelawl
See original here:
The Second Amendment Rules - Shotguns, Rifles & Pistols - Video