Daily Archives: September 25, 2014

NATO observes pullback of Russian troops from Ukraine

Posted: September 25, 2014 at 11:48 am

NATO has observed a significant withdrawal of Russian forces from inside Ukraine, but many Russian troops remain stationed nearby, an alliance military spokesman said on Wednesday.

There has been a significant pullback of Russian conventional forces from inside Ukraine, but many thousands are still deployed in the vicinity of the border, Lieutenant-Colonel Jay Janzen said in an e-mailed response to a request from Reuters for comment.

Some Russian troops remain inside Ukraine. It is difficult to determine the number, as pro-Russian separatists control several border crossings and troops are routinely moving back and forth across the border. Further, Russian special forces are operating in Ukraine, and they are difficult to detect, he said.

On September 4, a NATO military officer said Russia had several thousand combat troops and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles inside Ukraine and around 20,000 troops close to the Ukrainian border.

As recently as a week ago, NATO said it believed Russia still had around 1,000 soldiers inside Ukraine despite some cuts in troop numbers since a ceasefire began on Sept. 5.

Janzen said there appeared to be a reduction in incidents, including artillery fire, between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists.

NATO welcomes these positive signs, and encourages all parties to continue to work towards a peaceful solution to this crisis, he said, while still expressing NATOs concern about the large numbers of Russian forces deployed close to the eastern Ukraine border.

The rest is here:
NATO observes pullback of Russian troops from Ukraine

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO observes pullback of Russian troops from Ukraine

Nato sees significant withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine

Posted: at 11:48 am

A pro-Russian rebel at a checkpoint following shelling in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, on Tuesday. Photograph: Reuters/Marko Djurica

Nato has observed a significant withdrawal of Russian forces from inside Ukraine, but many Russian troops remain stationed nearby, an alliance military spokesman said on Wednesday.

There has been a significant pull back of Russian conventional forces from inside Ukraine, but many thousands are still deployed in the vicinity of the border, Lieut Col Jay Janzen said in an emailed response to a request for comment.

Some Russian troops remain inside Ukraine. It is difficult to determine the number, as pro-Russian separatists control several border crossings and troops are routinely moving back and forth across the border. Further, Russian special forces are operating in Ukraine, and they are difficult to detect, he said.

As recently as a week ago, Nato said it believed Russia still had about 1,000 soldiers inside Ukraine despite some cuts in troop numbers since a ceasefire began on September 5th. Lieut Col Janzen said there appeared to be a reduction in incidents, including artillery fire, between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists.

Nato welcomes these positive signs, and encourages all parties to continue to work towards a peaceful solution to this crisis, he said.

Meanwhile, the ceasefire between the separatists and government forces in the east of the country was breached as mortar fire struck an apartment block in the rebel-held city of Donetsk. Both sides said there was progress on the ground in fulfilling an agreement to pull back heavy artillery weapons from the front line, but today Kiev accused the rebels of violating the ceasefire.

Col Lysenko also said eight servicemen had been wounded in fighting overnight. A residential building in the north of Donetsk was heavily damaged by shelling, destroying at least two apartments.

While RIA Novosti news agency quoted the rebels as saying two people died in the attack, nobody at the scene could confirm any civilian casualties. That part of the city has been the subject of almost daily shelling despite the ceasefire, as fighting centred around the government-held city airport nearby has caught residential neighbourhoods in the crossfire. (Reuters/PA)

Here is the original post:
Nato sees significant withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Nato sees significant withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine

Fifth Amendment Projectb – Video

Posted: at 11:47 am


Fifth Amendment Projectb

By: Bailey dotto

Read the original:
Fifth Amendment Projectb - Video

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Fifth Amendment Projectb – Video

Can You Go to Jail for Refusing to Testify?

Posted: at 11:47 am

In any court proceeding, witness testimony can be an important source of evidence.

It follows, then, that courts take calling witnesses pretty seriously. How seriously? Seriously enough that those who refuse to testify can, in some situations, be held in contempt of court, which may result in penalties including fines and even jail time.

What are the rules for testifying in court and how can you keep yourself from running afoul of them?

Fifth Amendment Right against Self-Incrimination

One person who can generally never be forced to testify in court is a criminal defendant. Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This means that a defendant that is charged with a crime can choose whether or not to testify in court. However, if the defendant does choose to testify, he generally cannot choose which questions to answer.

The Fifth Amendment also extends to other witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings; any time a witness' testimony might incriminate him or her in a crime, the witness can choose not to testify by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. Unlike a criminal defendant, however, these witnesses can generally invoke their Fifth Amendment rights selectively during their testimony.

Being Subpoenaed to Testify

However, witnesses other than criminal defendants may also be compelled to testify in the form of a subpoena issued by a court. A subpoena may request a person to testify, provide documents, or bring other evidence to a court. If a person fails to obey the subpoena, they can be held in contempt and subject to fines, jail, or both.

There are several other types of witness who may be excused from testifying, even if they are subpoenaed:

Learn more about what happens in the courtroom and get some general tips for navigating a court proceeding at FindLaw's Learn About the Law section on Going to Court.

More here:
Can You Go to Jail for Refusing to Testify?

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Can You Go to Jail for Refusing to Testify?

Fourth Amendment: The History Behind "Unreasonable …

Posted: at 11:47 am

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.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits violations of our privacy and our person from unreasonable infringement by federal agents.

The founding generation had a pretty clear idea of what constituted unreasonable, because they experienced it firsthand under the British rule.

Prior to the Revolution, the British claimed the authority to issue Writs of Assistance allowing officials to enter private homes and businesses to search for evidence of smuggling. These general warrants authorized the holder to search anyplace for smuggled good and did not require any specification as to the place or the suspected goods. Writs of assistance never expired and were considered a valid substitute for specific search warrants. They were also transferable.

Writs of assistance were actually contrary to British legal tradition. In 1604, Attorney General of England Sir Edward Coke held in Semaynes Case that the King did not have unlimited authority to enter a private dwelling.

In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff may break the partys house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors.

Laying out the case, Coke eloquently upheld the sanctity of a persons home.

The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose.

Writs of assistance were a flashpoint in the years leading up to the Revolution. James Otis argued strenuously against their constitutionality in what came to be known as Paxtons case. He did not prevail, but his fiery oration heavily influenced John Adams and other revolutionary leaders. Otis vividly described the indignity of the writs.

Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of ones house. A mans house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.

Visit link:
Fourth Amendment: The History Behind "Unreasonable ...

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Fourth Amendment: The History Behind "Unreasonable …

E.O. 12333: End-Running the Fourth Amendment | The Dissenter

Posted: at 11:47 am

Most collection of U.S. domestic communications and data is done underE.O. 12333, signed byRonald Reagan

Historians of the Constitutional Era of the United States (1789-2001, RIP) will recall the Fourth Amendmentto the Constitution, the one that used to protect Americans against unreasonable and unwarranted searches.

The Supreme Court had generally held that searches required a warrant. That warrant could be issued only after law enforcement showed they had probable cause. That in turn had been defined by the Court to require a high standard of proof, a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

The basic idea for more or less over 200 years: unless the government has a good, legal reason to look into your business, it couldnt. As communications changed, the Fourth evolved to assert extend those same rights of privacy to phone calls, emails and texts, the same rules applying there as to physical searches.

That was Then

It was a good run. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the people from their government. If the First Amendments right to speak out publicly was the peoples wall of security, then the Fourth Amendments right to privacy was its buttress. It was once thought that the government should neither be able to stop citizens from speaking nor peer into their lives. Folks, as our president now refers to us, should not have to fear the Knock on the Door in either their homes or The Homeland writ large.

In Post-Constitutional America (2001-Present), the government has taken a bloody box cutter to the original copy of the Constitution and thrown the Fourth Amendment in the garbage. The NSA revelations of Edward Snowden are, in that sense, not just a shock to the conscience but to the concept of privacy itself: Our government spies on us. All of us. Without suspicion. Without warrants. Without probable cause. Without restraint.

The government also invades our privacy in multiple other ways, all built around end-runs of the Fourth Amendment, clever wordplay, legal hacks and simple twisting of words. Thus you get illegally obtained information recycled into material usable in court via what is called parallel construction. You have the creation of Constitution Free zones at the U.S. border. The Department of Justice created a Post-Constitutional interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that allows it to access millions of records of Americans using only subpoenas, not search warrants, to grab folks emails by searching one web server instead of millions of individual homes. Under a twist of an old privacy law, doctors disclose your medical records to the NSA without your permission or knowledge. SWAT raids by local police designed to break into African-American businesses on harassment expeditions are also now OK.

The Center of It All: Executive Order 12333

The most egregious example of such word-twisting and sleazy legal manipulations to morph illegal government spying under the Fourth Amendment into topsy-turvy quasi-legal spying is the use of Executive Order 12333, E.O. 12333, what the spooks call twelve triple three. The Order dates from 1981, signed by Ronald Reagan to buff up what his predecessors limited in response to overzealous law enforcement activities. The Gipper would be mighty proud that his perhaps most lasting accomplishment was legalizing surveillance of every American citizen.

See the article here:
E.O. 12333: End-Running the Fourth Amendment | The Dissenter

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on E.O. 12333: End-Running the Fourth Amendment | The Dissenter

Forest Service clamps down on photography in wilderness

Posted: at 11:46 am

Sunset in the Boundary Waters. Sean Collins

A picture in a national forest might cost you $1,000 if you snap it without a permit. Is this a threat to First Amendment rights?

The U.S. Forest Service is finalizing rules that will require journalists and photographers to have permission before taking a picture or shooting a video in a wilderness like the BWCA,the Oregonian reports.

Its pretty clearly unconstitutional, said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Va. They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just cant.

The rules appear to apply only to reporters and photographers who are working on stories that may not be friendly to practices in the wilderness. They would still allow for breaking news coverage of fires and rescues.

With smartphones blurring the lines between reporters and camera crews, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said the agency should tread more carefully.

The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone, Wyden said. Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.

Most of the countrys wilderness is in the West. Nearly 50 wilderness areas have been designated in Oregon, including wide stretches of land around Mount Hood, Mount Jefferson and Mount Washington.

The rules allow exceptions only for breaking news coverage of events like fires and rescues. Theyre more stringent than similar policies on wilderness areas managed by a different federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management.

The BLM does not require any special permit for newsgathering in wilderness areas.

More:
Forest Service clamps down on photography in wilderness

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Forest Service clamps down on photography in wilderness

TOR Browser: Safe to use 2014? – Yahoo Answers

Posted: at 11:46 am

I wouldn't use the browser bundle. be wary of the browser bundle from Tor ESPECIALLY if you use Windows. This bundle is the subject of special interest by FBI and they are constantly trying to exploit whatever version of Firefox that it uses and was recently successful. If you want to get on Tor you can always do it the easy way by using a router that has Tor embedded in it. I recommend PAPARouter (http://paparouter.com) because it's inexpensive (less than $100.00), allows you to anonymize several devices at once and best of all it has non U.S. exit nodes hard coded into it . Given all the uproar that other countries are having with U.S. spying, making your last Tor relay outside of the U.S. to your target site is great security and using https would be massive protection.

TOR AND HTTPS PAGE https://www.eff.org/pages/tor-and-https

FBI exploit using Firefox Bundle http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/08/...

See the original post here:
TOR Browser: Safe to use 2014? - Yahoo Answers

Posted in Tor Browser | Comments Off on TOR Browser: Safe to use 2014? – Yahoo Answers

Global Coin Reserve – New cryptocurrency BACKED UP by gold – Video

Posted: at 11:46 am


Global Coin Reserve - New cryptocurrency BACKED UP by gold
Get started with GLOBAL COIN RESERVE http://incomeguy.GlobalCoinReserve.com Lets talk... ADD ME ON FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/nebojsazarada.

By: Success Theory Team

See more here:
Global Coin Reserve - New cryptocurrency BACKED UP by gold - Video

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Global Coin Reserve – New cryptocurrency BACKED UP by gold – Video

cryptocurrency : The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

Posted: at 11:46 am

Cryptocurrency is the name given to a system that uses cryptography to allow the secure transfer and exchange of digital tokens in a distributed and decentralised manner. These tokens can be traded at market rates for fiat currencies. The first cryptocurrency was Bitcoin, which began trading in January 2009. Since then, many other cryptocurrencies have been created employing the same innovations that Bitcoin introduced, but changing some of the specific parameters of their governing algorithms. The two major innovations that Bitcoin introduced, and which made cryptocurrencies possible, were solutions to two long-standing problems in computer science: the double-spending problem and the Byzantine Generals Problem.

Until the invention of Bitcoin, it was impossible for two parties to transact electronically without employing a trusted third party intermediary. The reason was a conundrum known to computer scientists as the double spending problem, which has plagued attempts to create electronic cash since the dawn of the Internet.

To understand the problem, first consider how physical cash transactions work. The bearer of a physical currency note can hand it over to another person, who can then verify that he is the sole possessor of that note by simply looking at his hands. For example, if Alice hands Bob a $100 bill, Bob now has it and Alice does not. Bob can easily verify his possession of the $100 bill and, implicitly, that Alice no longer has it. Physical cash transfers are also final, in the sense that to reverse a transaction the new bearer must give back the currency note. In our example, Bob would have to hand the $100 bill back to Alice. Given all of these properties, cash makes it possible for different parties, including strangers, to transact without trusting each other.

Now, consider how electronic cash might work. Obviously, paper notes would be out of the picture. There would have to be some kind of digital representation of currency. Essentially, instead of a $100 bill, we might imagine a $100 computer file. When Alice wants to send $100 to Bob, she attaches a $100 file to a message and sends it to him. The problem, as anyone who has sent an email attachment knows, is that sending a file does not delete it from ones computer. Alice will retain a perfect digital copy of the $100 she sends Bob, and this would allow her to spend the same $100 a second time, or indeed a third and fourth. Alice could promise to Bob that she will delete the file once he has a copy, but Bob has no way to verify this without trusting Alice.

Until recently, the only way to overcome the double spending problem was to employ a trusted third party intermediary. In our example, both Alice and Bob would have an account with a third party that they each trust, such as PayPal. Trusted intermediaries like PayPal keep a ledger of all account balances and transactions. When Alice wants to send $100 to Bob, she tells PayPal, which in turn deducts the amount from her account and adds it to Bobs. The transaction reconciles to zero. Alice cannot spend the same $100, and Bob relies on PayPal, which he trusts, to verify this. At the end of the day, all transfers among all accounts reconcile to zero. Note, however, that unlike cash, transactions that involve a third party intermediary are not final, as we have defined it, because transactions can be reversed by the third party.

Like PayPal, the Bitcoin system employs a ledger, which is called the block chain. All transactions in the Bitcoin economy are recorded and reconciled in the block chain. However, unlike PayPals ledger, the block chain is not maintained by a central authority. Instead, the block chain is a public document that is distributed in a peer-to-peer fashion across thousands of nodes in the Bitcoin network. New transactions are checked against the block chain to ensure that the same bitcoins have not been previously spent, but the work of verifying new transactions is not done by any one trusted third party. Instead, the work is distributed among thousands of users who contribute their computing capacity to reconcile and maintain the block chain ledger. In essence, the whole peer-to-peer network takes the place of the one trusted third party.

Bitcoins solution to the double spending problem distributing the ledger among the thousands of nodes in a peer-to-peer network presents another problem. If every node on the network has a complete copy of the ledger that they share with the peers to which they connect, how does a new node connecting to the network know that she is not being given a falsified copy of the ledger? How does an existing node know that she is not getting falsified updates to the ledger? The difficult task of reaching consensus among distributed parties who do not trust each other is another longstanding problem in the computer science literature known as the Byzantine Generals Problem, which Bitcoin also elegantly solved.

The Byzantine Generals Problem posits that a number of generals each have their armies camped outside a city that they have surrounded. The generals know that their numbers are large enough that if half their combined force attacks at the same time they will take the city, but if they do not attack at the same time they will be spread too thinly and will be defeated. They can only communicate via messenger, and they have no way of verifying the authenticity of the messages being relayed. They also suspect that some of the generals in their ranks are traitors who will send fake messages along to their peers. How can this large group come to a consensus on the time of attack without employing trust and without a central authority, especially when there will likely be attempts to confuse them with fake messages?

In essence, this is the same problem faced by Bitcoins miners, the specialised nodes that verify new transactions and add them to the distributed ledger. Bitcoins solution is to require additions to the ledger to be accompanied by the solution to a mathematical problem that is very difficult to solve but simple to verify. (This is much like calculating prime factors; costly to do, but easy to check.) New transactions are broadcast in a peer-to-peer fashion across the network by parties to those transactions. Miners look at those transactions and confirm by checking their copy of the ledger (the block chain) that they are not double-spends. If they are legitimate transactions, miners add them to a queue of new transactions that they would like to add as a new page in the ledger (a new block in the block chain). While they are doing this, they are simultaneously trying to solve a mathematical problem in which all previous blocks in the block chain are an input. The miner that successfully solves the problem broadcasts his solution to the problem along with the new block to be added to the block chain. The other miners can easily verify whether the solution to the problem is correct, and if it is they add that new block to their copy of the block chain. The process begins anew with the new block chain as an input of the problem to be solved for the next block.

The mathematical problem in question takes an average of 10 minutes to solve. This is key because the important thing is not the solution itself, but that the solution proves that the miner has expended 10 minutes of work. On average, a new block is added to the block chain every 10 minutes because the problem that miners must solve takes on average 10 minutes to solve. However, if more miners join the network, or if computing power improves, the average time between blocks will decrease. To maintain the rate at which blocks are added to six per hour, the difficulty of the problem is adjusted every 2016 blocks (every two weeks). Again, the key here is to ensure that each block takes about 10 minutes to discover.

Visit link:
cryptocurrency : The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on cryptocurrency : The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics