Monthly Archives: March 2017

NSA whistleblower shows how candidate Trump could have been wiretapped – American Thinker (blog)

Posted: March 6, 2017 at 2:53 pm

A former top intelligence official-turned-whistleblowerat the National Security Agency says surveillance programs by the NSA could have been keeping tabs on the Trump campaign and that their intelligence could have been shared with other agencies.

William Binney, a legend at the NSA, laid out the case for warrantless wiretapping of Trump Tower and how other intel agencies like the CIA could have had access to the wiretaps.

Fox News national security correspondent James Rosen himself bugged by the Obama administration says Trump may be right:

ZeroHedge Blog:

Washington's Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history - Bill Binney - whether he thought Trump had been bugged.

Binney is the NSA executive whocreatedthe agencys mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as theseniortechnical director within the agency, who managedsix thousandNSA employees.

He was a 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a legend within the agency and the NSAsbest-everanalyst and code-breaker.

Binney also mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Unions command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons).

Binney told Washington's Blog:

NSA has all the data through the Upstream programs (Fairview/Stormbrew/Blarney) [background] and backed up by second and some third party country collection.

Plus the FBI and CIA plus others, as of the last month of the Obama administration, have direct access to all the NSA collection (metadata and content on phones,email and banking/credit cards etc.) with no attempt at oversight by anybody [background]. This is all done under Executive Order 12333 [the order whichallows unlimited spyingno matter what intelligence officials claim] ....

FBI would only ask for a warrant if they wanted to be able to take it into court at some point given they have something meaningful as evidence. This is clearly true given the fact the President Trump's phone conversations with other country leaders were leaked to the mainstream media.

In other words, Binney is saying that Trumps phoneswerebugged by the NSA without a warrant - remember, top NSA whistleblowers have previously explained that the NSA is spying onvirtuallyallof the digital communications of Americans. - and the NSA shared the raw data with the CIA, FBI and other agencies.

If the FBI obtained a warrant to tap Trump's phone, it was a "parallel construction" to "launder" improperly-gained evidence through acceptable channels.

As we've previouslyexplained:

The government islaundering information gained through mass surveillancethrough other agencies, with an agreement that the agencies willrecreate the evidence in a parallel construction so they dont have to admit that the evidence came from unconstitutional spying. This data laundering is gettingworseandworse.

So does it mean that the NSA spying on Trump Tower actually turned up some dirt?

Maybe ...

Binney has no direct knowledge of any surveillance of Trump Tower. What he has is a roadmap for how it could have been done. He also shows the likelihood that agencies could have used whatever information was captured by the NSA's information dragnet.

A couple of caveats. First, Obama's executive order allowing other intel agencies access to the NSA's raw data was signed after the campaign was over. That doesn't mean that any wiretapped information from the Trump campaign wasn't gathered or even shared by NSA. It means that it is less likely thatintelligence agencies hadaccess to Trump campaign phone and email records before the election.

Secondly, from what we know so far, the FBI was not operating under any warrants, nor were there any FISA warrants issued to spy on the Trump campaign. Again, this doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, Binney's roadmap shows it's more likely that if surveillance occurred, it was done without a warrant. But if we're looking for hard evidence or a paper trail proving Trump's charge, we may never find it.

Astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the adage, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Sagan was talking about alien visitation of Earth and the fact that to date, solid "evidence" has been lacking. The same should hold true in politics. Accusing the former president of the United States of conducting a secret wiretapping program against an oppositionpresidential candidateis just about as extraordinary as it gets. So far, those who claim that the charges are true including the president are lacking solid evidence that the bugging occurred. What is offered as "proof" is more opinion and supposition than substantiation of facts.

But Binney's roadmap, along with what we know of surveillance during the Obama years, points to extremely troubling questions that Democrats cannot dismiss as "conspiracy-mongering." In this case, there were a will and a way. For the sake of the country, Congress needs to get to the bottom of the matter.

William Binney, a legend at the NSA, laid out the case for warrantless wiretapping of Trump Tower and how other intel agencies like the CIA could have had access to the wiretaps.

Fox News national security correspondent James Rosen himself bugged by the Obama administration says Trump may be right:

ZeroHedge Blog:

Washington's Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history - Bill Binney - whether he thought Trump had been bugged.

Binney is the NSA executive whocreatedthe agencys mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as theseniortechnical director within the agency, who managedsix thousandNSA employees.

He was a 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a legend within the agency and the NSAsbest-everanalyst and code-breaker.

Binney told Washington's Blog:

NSA has all the data through the Upstream programs (Fairview/Stormbrew/Blarney) [background] and backed up by second and some third party country collection.

If the FBI obtained a warrant to tap Trump's phone, it was a "parallel construction" to "launder" improperly-gained evidence through acceptable channels.

As we've previouslyexplained:

So does it mean that the NSA spying on Trump Tower actually turned up some dirt?

Maybe ...

Read the original here:
NSA whistleblower shows how candidate Trump could have been wiretapped - American Thinker (blog)

Posted in NSA | Comments Off

CIA, DOJ sued over leaks of classified info about former NSA Flynn – Fox News

Posted: at 2:53 pm

The CIA and Departments of Justice and Treasury are being sued by a prominent legal organization for their role in leaking highly classified material as part of an effort to undermine the credibility of former Trump administration National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, according to an announcement.

Judicial Watch, known for its role in exposing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, announced on Monday that it has sued several federal agencies for information related to Flynn's discussions with Russian officials before he officially entered the White House.

Flynn was forced to resign from the White House for apparently misleading President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence about the substance of these conversations.

However, theWashington Free Beaconand multiple other news outlets havereportedon a campaign by former Obama administration officials and loyalists to spread highly classified information in a bid to handicap the Trump administration.

In addition to Flynn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House adviser SebastianGorkahave been the subject of multiple leaks aimed at jeopardizing their positions in the administration.

Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.

Posted in NSA | Comments Off

26/11 attacks carried out by Pak-based terror group, says its former NSA Durrani – Hindustan Times

Posted: at 2:53 pm

Pakistans former national security adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani said on Monday the 26/11 Mumbai attacks was carried out by a terror-group based in Pakistan and called it a classic example of cross-border terrorism.

He, however, said the Pakistani government had no role in the attack. Durrani was speaking at a conference on combating terrorism at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis.

Durrani was sacked from the post of national security adviser for confirming Mumbai attacker Ajmal Kasabs Pakistani nationality to the media.

More than 160 people, including many foreigners, were killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks India says was carried out by 10 Lashkar-e-Taiba militants. Nine of the attackers were killed and lone survivor Ajmal Kasab was captured and later hanged in 2012.

Prime suspect LeT operations commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, believed to be the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, is in hiding after getting bail over a year ago.

American citizen David Headley, who admitted scouting targets for the 2008 assault on Mumbai by Pakistani militants, has testified that the plot was hatched with at least one Pakistani intelligence official and a navy frogman.

The attacks trials sluggish pace and lack of convictions has been a thorn in bilateral relations and India has maintained that crucial evidence was to be found in Pakistan, the site of training and plotting of the 26/11 strikes that killed 166 people.

Durrani also said Lashkar-e-Taiba Hafiz Saeed has no utility and Pakistan should act against him.

India has asked Pakistan to re-investigate the 2008 Mumbai attacks case and put on trial Saeed, who is currently under house arrest in Lahore under the anti-terrorism law.

India made the fresh demand in response to Pakistans request to send 24 Indian witnesses for recording their statements in the case.

With inputs from PTI

Read the original post:
26/11 attacks carried out by Pak-based terror group, says its former NSA Durrani - Hindustan Times

Posted in NSA | Comments Off

EFF to Court: Forcing Someone to Unlock and Decrypt Their Phone Violates the Constitution – EFF

Posted: at 2:53 pm

The police cannot force you to tell them the passcode for your phone. Forcing you to turn over or type in your passcode violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incriminationthe privilege that allows people to plead the Fifth to avoid handing the government evidence it could use against them. And if you have a phone thats encrypted by default (which we hope you do), forcing you to type in your passcode to unlock the device means forcing you to decrypt your phone, too. That forced translationof unintelligible information to intelligiblealso violates the Fifth Amendment.

But theres a problem: not all law enforcement officers have received the memo. In one particularly egregious case, military investigators forced the defendant, Sergeant Edward J. Mitchell, to unlock and decrypt his iPhone 6 after he asked for a lawyer. Not only was the investigators continued interrogation of Sgt. Mitchell without a lawyer a clear violation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but compelling him to unlock and decrypt his phone also violated the Fifth Amendment. The case is currently on appeal to a federal military appeals court, and we filed an amicus brief with the court explaining why.

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination protects testimonial communications. Testimonial communications are those that require a person to use the contents of his own mind to communicate some fact. Testimonial communications dont have to be verbal; the key is that the information conveyed must come from the suspects own mind. As we explain in our brief, compelled passcode-based decryption is inherently testimonialand thus always prohibited by the Fifth Amendmentfor two reasons.

First, the compelled entry of a memorized passcode forces a person to reveal the contents of their mind to investigatorscontents that are absolutely privileged by the Fifth Amendment. As far as the Fifth Amendment is concerned, theres no difference between forcing a person to type their passcode directly into their phone and forcing them to say it out loud to an investigator. The trial judge in this case understood that and found that typing in a passcode was a testimonial act. So just by forcing the defendant to unlock his phone, the investigators violated his Fifth Amendment right.

Second, the process of decryption itself is testimonial because it involves translating unintelligible, encrypted evidence into a form that can be used and understood by investigatorsagain relying on the contents of the suspects mind.

Encryption transforms plain, understandable information into unreadable letters, numbers, or symbols using a fixed formula or process. When information is encrypted on a phone, computer, or other electronic device, it exists only in its scrambled format. If Sgt. Mitchells phone had merely been locked but not also encrypted, had the officers broken into the phone, they would have been able to access and understand the information stored on the phone. But since the phone was encrypted, if they had tried to break into the phone, they would have found only scrambled, encrypted data; they wouldnt have been able to understand it. The officers needed Sgt. Mitchell, and his unique knowledge, to translate the information on the phone into its unscrambled, intelligible state for them to be able to use it against him. In other words, they were seeking transformation and explanation of data by an accused of the very data they sought to incriminate him with. This thus violated the Fifth Amendment for a second and independent reasonbecause of the nature of compelled decryption.

Oral argument in this case is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on April 4, 2017 at the University of Notre Dame Law School in Indiana, as part of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces student outreach program. We hope the court holds that, because of the very nature of decryption, compelled passcode-based decryption hits at the heart of the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination.

Thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of the District of Columbia for joining our brief.

See the original post:
EFF to Court: Forcing Someone to Unlock and Decrypt Their Phone Violates the Constitution - EFF

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off

ONLINE-ONLY OPINION: Tester’s assault on corporate rights is an assault on people’s rights – The Missoulian

Posted: at 2:53 pm

The year is 2019. The government sends in a SWAT team to seize any corporate property it wants without the due process or just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The government also has the power to swipe bank assets, raid newspaper offices without warrants or just cause, and even censor any news published by a media corporation. No, its not the plot of a newly unearthed Orwell novel. These tactics, and more, would be legal under an amendment to the U.S. Constitution just introduced by Montana Sen. Jon Tester.

Testers amendment aims to strip rights from corporate entities. His amendment would provide that (1) The rights enumerated in this Constitution and other rights retained by the people shall be the rights of natural persons; (2) As used in this Constitution, the terms people, person, and citizen shall not include a corporation, a limited liability company, or any other corporate entity established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Senator Tester justifies his proposal by arguing that a corporation doesnt hop on the combine to try and get harvest done. Well.

Seven years after Citizens United, the whole corporations arent people and therefore shouldnt have rights bit is getting pretty tiresome. Certainly, our elected officials should be held to a higher standard of debate.

Yes, its true that if youve never thought about it, the idea that corporations are people seems absurd on its face. Corporations are not people, of course. But, for many purposes, it makes perfect sense that the law treats them as such. For example, if the law did not treat corporations as people, they couldnt be sued.

The bigger point, though, is that corporations have rights because people have rights, and people form and own corporations. This is a principle as old as the American Republic, re-emphasized by the Supreme Court as early as 1819 in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. A corporation, the Court noted, is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. But that didnt mean that people gave up their rights when they formed a corporation. Rather, the decision emphasized that when people join together to accomplish things, they usually need some form of organization, and shouldnt have to sacrifice their rights just because they organize. Individuals, wrote the Court, find it impossible to effect their design securely and certainly without an incorporating act. Corporate rights are the rights people have when they act together.

Oddly enough, in the momentous Citizens United decision that prompts Testers proposal, not even the Courts dissenters ever mentioned the issue of corporate personhood. Why? Because they all understood that corporate personhood is a longstanding doctrine that is not controversial in law, and was not what the case was about.

So lets think about Testers reasoning. There are over 29,000 farms and ranches in Montana. Many of these are incorporated. And indeed, around the country a great many, perhaps most, family farms are incorporated. So in a sense, when your local family farmer gets to work, it is indeed a corporation who hops on that combine. In fact, Testers family farm is incorporated it is T-Bone Farms, Inc. Does Tester think it should be illegal for him to post a political sign on his farms property?

Under Testers proposed constitutional amendment, the government could deprive him of a right to a jury trial any time a lawsuit involved his farm. The government could simply take his land, without due process, for any reason, and without compensation, all in violation of the takings clause. All this because, by incorporating his farm, he would give up his constitutional rights.

Constitutional amendments, such as that offered by Tester, will not pass in the next few years but they indicate the general hostility to free speech that many senators have, and their willingness to silence speakers they dont like. They also show the willingness to advocate rash and dangerous proposals to accomplish that end. In the long term, that should concern us all.

Brad Smith is the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Read the original here:
ONLINE-ONLY OPINION: Tester's assault on corporate rights is an assault on people's rights - The Missoulian

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off

Weapons of war should be allowed | Letter – The Courier-Journal

Posted: at 2:52 pm

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

The Second Amendment is not about guns, Instead, it is about the inalienable right to self defense.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

CJ Letter 1:56 p.m. ET March 6, 2017

Weapons(Photo: Czanner, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the Second Amendment does not apply to weapons of war. I beg to differ. In our founders day, the musket was a weapon of war and a firearm widely used outside of war.Like most people today, our founders knew that technology would advance. Clearly, they believed that one day tyrants could rise again. This was the single most important aspect of why the founders established the Second Amendment. No modern day judge could possibly reach any other conclusion unless influenced by self-ideology. The Second Amendment not only covers AR-15s and AK-47s, but bigger more powerful semi automatics. Killers can always kill when they are facing unarmed victims, but this is not so for the armed citizen facing soldiers with semi-automatic weapons, for revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles are limited against such firepower. The Second Amendment is not about guns, Instead, it is about the inalienable right to self defense, a right that should never be defined by any man or woman, but protected by the oaths of statesmen, who have pledged to uphold that right.

Mark Damon Milby

Pekin, Indiana47165

Read or Share this story: http://cjky.it/2mwYPeE

3:46

3:28

4:00

1:53

2:18

6:56

7:28

3:15

3:05

3:51

3:38

3:12

2:41

3:38

2:31

3:22

3:45

1:33

1:56

3:24

3:03

3:39

3:14

3:37

3:56

3:01

2:19

4:36

2:58

1:47

0) { %>

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off

Iowa: Attend Second Amendment Day at the Iowa State Capitol! – NRA ILA

Posted: at 2:52 pm

All Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to attend Second Amendment Day at the Iowa State Capitol tomorrow, March 7. Second Amendment advocates will have the opportunity to meet with legislators and other pro-gun Iowans, in addition to watching the floor proceedings as the House of Representatives consider House File 517, the omnibus bill which would make many pro-gun reforms for Iowa gun owners. Further details can be found below. Also, please click the Take Action button below to contact your state Representative and urge them to SUPPORT HF 517!

Second Amendment Day Tuesday, March 7, 2017 Iowa State Capitol 1007 E. Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50319

10:00am-10:45am: Presentation and Speakers, Room 102 10:45am-12:00pm: Lobby Time 12:00pm: House of Representatives vote on HF 517

HF 517 covers a diverse range of important issues for gun owners. Included in HF 517 are the following pro-gun reforms:

Please stay tuned to your email inbox andwww.nraila.orgfor further updates on this bill as it advances through the Iowa Legislature.

See more here:
Iowa: Attend Second Amendment Day at the Iowa State Capitol! - NRA ILA

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off

Arizona Passes Bill to Lift Infringements on Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

Posted: at 2:52 pm

On Wednesday, the Arizona Senate passed Senate Bill 1122, which prohibits local governments from requiring background checks for private party transfers. The billis considered to be a legislative repercussion against the city of Tucson. In the past, Tucson has destroyed every gun it seized, something gun-rights activists says could violate state law.

Because of Tucsons position on guns, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich sued Tucson under a state law that allows the state to pull funding from local governments whose policies contradict those of the states. In other words, Tucson has one option: repeal the ordinance or face significant funding shortages. Losing state funding would cost the city of Tucson $170 million.

The Tucson city council refused to repeal the ordinance. While the issue plays out in court, the council has decided to pause the gun destruction program.

According to Brnovich, gun control is a state-level issue, not a local issue.

SB 1122 is being considered the legislative remedy to the Tucson problem.

From guns.com:

This is over-wrought, he said Tuesday during session. This does not allow local cities or counties to do any type of a background check for any exchange of property including cars. This is being decided before the state Supreme Court right now so lets not rush it. We should not be deicing for a city whats best for the public safety of its citizens.

The case Farley referenced pits Tucson against the state over its destruction of seized or surrendered firearms. The policy preempts state law which requires such firearms be sold, though a court decision in favor of Tucson would quash SB 1122, Farley said.

The city of Tucson is arguing that gun regulations are a matter of local control, he said. I think we should wait to see what the court decides before we make any more laws that could be invalidated.

Author's Bio: Beth Baumann

Continued here:
Arizona Passes Bill to Lift Infringements on Second Amendment Rights - Bearing Arms

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off

First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida’s open government laws – Tampabay.com (blog)

Posted: at 2:52 pm

WEST PALM BEACH Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Florida Legislature debated a bill that would exempt from public access all information about crop-dusting operations.

But most operators are actively broadcasting that information in search of clients. And their registration numbers are painted right on their planes' tails.

"How do you exempt something that is clearly visible?" Barbara Petersen asks. The bill never became law.

Because of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, the state's records and meetings are more accessible than in most states. But the Legislature has, year in and year out, instituted, or considered instituting, numerous exemptions. The body, on average, imposes up to a dozen a year; the grand total, as of early February, was 1,119.

Keeping an eye on those efforts is Petersen, president of Florida's First Amendment Foundation, a Tallahassee nonprofit open-government advocacy group. It's supported by newspapers and broadcasters as well as numerous lawyers and just plain citizens. Its mission is to help all of the above. Whether it's a powerful news outlet or a property owner wanting to see the paperwork for the road that was rerouted in front of his house.

Bills already proposed for this session would let elected officials talk in private and block information about college executive candidates.

Where does your legislator stand?

Starting with the 2017 legislative session, which begins Tuesday, the Florida Society of News Editors plans to make it easier to find out.

Each year FSNE completes a project devoted to Sunshine Week, a nationwide initiative to educate the public about the importance of transparent government. This year's project will focus on a "scorecard" to track the foundation's priority list of public records exemptions. FSNE members will create a permanent scoring system to grade legislators on their introduction of bills and their final votes.

The Palm Beach Post, as part of an annual project by the Florida Society of News Editors, will report on a legislative "scorecard." Legislators will be graded by the Foundation for how they voted for and, in some cases, introduced exemptions.

Reporters from Florida newspapers will establish a final scorecard when the session ends and interview lawmakers about their decisions related to public record exemptions.

Florida's Legislature established public records laws as early as the early 20th century, created the Government in the Sunshine Law in the late 1960s, and in 1992 established a "constitutional right of access."

In each legislative session, hundreds of bills are submitted to create exemptions. Some years, a lot pass. Some years a few pass. Petersen recalled a year where about 20 were voted in.

"The vast majority of the bills we track are justified, and we take a neutral position on them, or we work to make them such that we're neutral," Petersen said.

And, she told one politician in a letter, "We agree that the requirements of our famed Sunshine Law can be an inconvenience for government officials at times. But the right of Floridians to oversee their government and hold it accountable for its actions a right imbedded in our constitution far outweighs such minor annoyances."

She also said that the Sunshine Law "is not a partisan issue. That's a misperception. Everyone thinks Republicans hate the law and Democrats love the law. That's not true. We have friends and detractors on both sides of the aisle."

Petersen keeps busy writing sponsors of bills the foundation opposes.

She wrote state Rep. Bob Rommel, R-Naples, to oppose HB 351, which would exempt personal identifying information of applicants for president, provost, or dean of a state college and would close meetings related to executive searches.

And she wrote state Rep. Byron Donalds, also R-Naples, about HB 843, which, in an elected body of at least five members, would allow two of them to discuss public business in private "without procedural safeguards such as notice or a requirement that minutes of such discussions be taken." She said the bill "invites pernicious mischief by our elected officials."

Sometimes Petersen and other public records advocates win. Sometimes they don't.

In 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a Broward County mall and killed. The slaying was a watershed for how authorities respond to child abductions and made the boy's father, John, a crime fighting advocate and longtime television host.

In 1996, four newspapers sued under the state's open records laws. Their argument: Police in Hollywood couldn't reasonably claim the exemption that the case still was active after 15 years. Even as the Walshes and the Broward County State Attorney filed emergency motions to block the release, saying it would jeopardize the case, a judge agreed with the newspapers and the police released more than 10,000 pages of documents. They suggested drifter Ottis Toole killed the boy, but Hollywood police were unable to build a strong enough case to charge him.

Even today, the case remains officially unsolved, although an investigator working with the boy's parents made a powerful case in 2011 of what the newspapers said in 1996: Toole was the killer.

And in February 2001, auto racing legend Dale Earnhardt Sr. died when his car slammed into a wall on the last lap of the Daytona 500. Authorities later blocked news outlets' access to autopsy photos, which were public record, and the outlets were permitted only to have an expert review the photos. They used that analysis to raise questions about how racing's governing body, NASCAR, handled Earnhardt's death.

During the legal battle, the Legislature passed a law exempting autopsy photos, saying they feared ghoulish images would make their way to the Internet. Newspapers argued they never do that and not giving them the photos removed their ability to question autopsy results. The ban has survived legal challenges.

Not everyone sees the Sunshine Law as untouchable or as always a good thing.

In 2015, Gulf Stream, east of Boynton Beach, was swamped by hundreds of public records requested from a resident who then sued when the town of about 900, with a paid office staff of six, was unable to keep up. In 2016, legislation fizzled that would have removed the requirement that government agencies pay attorney fees if they lose a public records suit. Opponents said while the intent to save small entities such as Gulf Stream was admirable, such bills would have a chilling effect on people afraid that if they sought public records and lost in court, they'd be stuck with a huge legal bill.

Similar legislation is up again this year, and again the foundation opposes it. But not Keith Rizzardi.

"In normal circumstances, the Sunshine State's public records law is a model for ensuring the disclosure of information to the benefit of an informed citizenry," Rizzardi, a law professor at St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami, wrote for the law review of the Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport.

"Experience shows that the abnormal is occurring. Lacking sufficient boundaries to prevent misuses of the law, the efficiency of our bureaucracy is compromised, and taxpayers are the victims," said Rizzardi, who worked with Gulf Stream on its case.

The professor also cited a case in Polk County in which a requester "sought to obtain the health insurance information for Polk County school employees, spouses, and children. To many, the request appeared to be a shocking invasion of privacy, but under the Florida Constitution, the right to privacy is subordinate to the right of access to public records. Indeed, the broad request, and the resulting litigation, eventually expanded to include 11 Florida school boards, and the government was compelled to respond."

First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida's open government laws 03/06/17 [Last modified: Monday, March 6, 2017 11:13am] Photo reprints | Article reprints

Link:
First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida's open government laws - Tampabay.com (blog)

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

The first amendment in a digital age #UseYourOwnVoice – Lariat Saddleback College

Posted: at 2:52 pm

Saddleback College President, Tod Burnett, introducing the Associated Student Government and other affiliates to the stage for the #UseYourOwnVoice event in the quad. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

Saddleback College presents part one of a four part series called Understanding the First Amendment in the 21st Century or #UseYourOwnVoice yesterday Feb. 28, 2017 in the quad.

The main purpose of this event was to inform and educate students and faculty on how the application of the first amendment has changed since the onset of technology and social media. With the help of Associated Student Government, the Pre-Law Society, Academic Senate, Classified Senate, and Dr. Tod Burnett, Saddleback College president, a panel of students were given the chance to express any concerns, feelings, and questions they had to a panel of Saddleback College professors.

The panel of Saddleback College professors included political science professors Kendralyn Webber and Christina Hinkle, mathematics professor Frank Gonzalez, and Journalism professor Mike Reed.

A Panel of Saddleback College students and professors take the stage to discuss applications of the first amendment in the digital age of technology. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

In order to understand the first amendment, said Mike Reed, we must first analyze the nine areas of unprotected speech that most people either forget or fail to realize exist.

The student panel prepare to ask questions in regards to first amendment application in the digital age. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

The digital age has given rise to many pressing questions when correlating them to first amendment freedoms. One main reason for this is the Supreme Court and its establishment in relation to freedoms of press and speech were created nearly 50 years ago.

They were created way before the implementation or creation for that matter, of the Internet, World Wide Web, and smartphones. The emergence of Google and other tech giants like Apple as well as social media platforms has propelled us into a new age of communication. This makes it hard for the present generation to establish grounds for proper first amendment rights seeing as many need revaluation or a complete overhaul.

The role of the Supreme Court (which some regard as too slow) still works because it gives authority, the right to fundamentally break down protected speech and reflect on all of the consequences, said Christina Hinkle, Its important for us to utilize the tools we have been given (Internet) to further educate people on these proceedings and make proper provisions.

For many people the Internet has made it harder for interpersonal communication to take place. This is due in part because of the lack of education on the first amendment. Nowadays, many people assume news is genuine just from a glance or a gloss-over. These immediate reactions have made it possible for people to actually widen the gap and increase a polarization of opinions.

Interpersonal relationships have become media popcorn for some people, said Kendralyn Webber, Its almost as if its not about you know but what you google.

In too many ways this has become the normal way of projecting facts, opinions, and information. Although we may be in a confusing place as far as communication goes, having events in the community like #UseYourOwnVoice on college campuses helps to bridge the unknown and further educate people on our unalienable rights.

For more information, visit Saddleback Colleges upcoming events and learn more about the #UseYourOwnVoice series.

Link:
The first amendment in a digital age #UseYourOwnVoice - Lariat Saddleback College

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Monthly Archives: March 2017

NSA whistleblower shows how candidate Trump could have been wiretapped – American Thinker (blog)

CIA, DOJ sued over leaks of classified info about former NSA Flynn – Fox News

26/11 attacks carried out by Pak-based terror group, says its former NSA Durrani – Hindustan Times

EFF to Court: Forcing Someone to Unlock and Decrypt Their Phone Violates the Constitution – EFF

ONLINE-ONLY OPINION: Tester’s assault on corporate rights is an assault on people’s rights – The Missoulian

Weapons of war should be allowed | Letter – The Courier-Journal

Iowa: Attend Second Amendment Day at the Iowa State Capitol! – NRA ILA

Arizona Passes Bill to Lift Infringements on Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida’s open government laws – Tampabay.com (blog)

The first amendment in a digital age #UseYourOwnVoice – Lariat Saddleback College

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution