Mediaboss Marketing

Michael Samukai, the son of Defense Minister Brownie Samukai, who is being tried for allegedly shooting Zardee Andrews in the back of his neck, told Criminal Court A yesterday that the gun used during the incident was issued to him by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The agency is expected to appear before the court on Thursday, March 2.

Defendant Samukai, who is on the witness stand, was said to have shot Andrews on September 13, 2016, during a fist fight about the victims extra marital relations with his wife. The incident occurred at the Tropicana Beach on the Robertfiled Highway.

Although, defendant Samukai testified that it was the NSA that issued him the gun, police investigation established that he acquired the weapon illegally. He, however, said the permit for the weapon is still in the possession of the NSA.

Samukai claimed that he is an employee of the NSA with a rank of deputy chief of security assigned at the National Port Authority (NPA). Despite the shooting incident, he still maintains his post.

His explanation came immediately after the prosecution asked him to produce every legitimate document in his possession that authorizes him to carry the arm.

It was due to that information that his lawyer asked the court for the agency to appear before it and to prove whether or not the defendants was authorized by the NSA to carry a firearm.

Further to his testimony, defendant Samukai alleged that he was issued the gun, after he had complained to his bosses that he had been attacked on many occasions, by unidentified persons while performing his duty at the port.

After I was physically attacked on many occasions as deputy chief of security at the port, it was when I thought that I needed protection and it was how the NSA gave me the weapon for protection, the defendant alleged.

He added that the NSA did not give him the permit for the weapon.

Explaining about the shooting incident, Samukai denied any knowledge as to who actually carried out the act.

The gun was in my jacket and while we were fighting, he spotted it and we together took it out of my clothes (jacket) and it went off, so, I do not know how he was shot, Samukai alleged.

He claimed that after the incident he immediately reported the weapon to the headquarters of the LNP, where the Police Inspector General, Gregory Coleman, advised him to leave it there because nothing was going to happen to me.

He is charged with multiple crimes, including aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit murder and illegal possession of firearm.

See the original post here:
Michael Samukai Implicates NSA in 'Gun Ownership' - Liberian Daily Observer

Say you're a senior national security adviser on a campaign and part of your job is to speak to foreign ambassadors. You know the United States government often has such foreign officials under electronic surveillance, but you also know that, as an American citizen, you're still protected by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately for you, the FBI can collect your communications emails, texts, chats, or calls with those foreign officials and look at them without a warrant.

How is that possible? Nearly 10 years ago, Congress gave the NSA broad authority to intercept Internet communications, as long as it was for foreign intelligence purposes. That authority, known as Section 702, has played a valuable role in disrupting terrorist plots and gathering foreign intelligence, but it has always had two serious flaws.

First, its drafters did not carefully consider what protections should exist for U.S. persons whose communications would be reviewed by law enforcement. Second, the drafters did not foresee what having a statute that allowed for broad collection against foreigners would mean for U.S. companies operating overseas. But now, Congress has an opportunity to fix these two flaws before this statute expires at the end of the year.

According to government officials, Section 702 has played a crucial role in disrupting terrorist plots. A group commissioned by President Barack Obama to review the statute concluded that information obtained through it had "contributed in some degree" to the success of 53 terrorism investigations. In particular, intelligence agencies have highlighted that Section 702 helped disrupt a plot to bomb the New York subway system and a terrorism financing scheme operating out of Missouri. Successes like these have led intelligence officials to describe it as their "most significant tool" for the "detection, identification, and disruption of terrorist threats."

But while Section 702 is a powerful tool in the fight against terror, it raises serious concerns in the law enforcement context.

Section 702 allows the NSA to collect the communications of foreign persons from U.S. tech companies like Microsoft and Google and from U.S. telecom firms' networks. This collection, though targeted at potentially dangerous foreigners, inevitably sweeps up the communications of innocent Americans and non-Americans. These communications can be accessed by the FBI when investigating not only national security matters, but any crime. Because Section 702 information is not obtained pursuant to a warrant, this allows the FBI to evade the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and unconstitutionally invade the privacy of Americans.

American tech companies are also affected by Section 702. After particulars of 702 surveillance were leaked to the press, foreign governments, anxious about being surveilled by the NSA, denied contracts to U.S. tech firms like Microsoft and Verizon. More destructive was a 2015 ruling by the European Court of Justice which cited concerns about Section 702 when striking down a framework known as the Safe Harbor, which protected American tech companies from certain European data regulations.

Without Safe Harbor, U.S. companies could have been required to locate Europeans' data on servers in the European Union, with this seriously increasing companies' costs and proving especially prohibitive for start-ups. Although EU and U.S. authorities quickly implemented a replacement for Safe Harbor known as Privacy Shield, that agreement is already being challenged in EU courts. If it is struck down, the commerce-killing requirements that were predicted in the aftermath of Safe Harbor could become a reality, bringing transatlantic data flows and trade to a screeching halt.

Congress should reauthorize Section 702, but it should also amend it to protect Americans' rights and empower U.S. companies to push back against government surveillance that hurts their bottom lines. As lawmakers do this, they can ensure that Americans are safe, their rights are respected, and our companies continue to compete in the global marketplace.

Also from the Washington Examiner

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will bring two guests to President Trump's speech.

02/28/17 8:38 PM

Mieke Eoyang (@MiekeEoyang) is the vice president for the National Security Program at Third Way and previously served as a subcommittee staff director on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Gary Ashcroft (@ashcroftgm) is a national security fellow at Third Way.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more:
Congress can reform the NSA to protect our rights without putting us in danger - Washington Examiner

The Indian state of Kerala is saving three billion rupees (approximately $58.6 million) each year by using free and open source software for school education, a government official says.

Kerala made IT a compulsory subject in 2003. FOSS was introduced gradually in 2005 and slowly replaced proprietary software, according to a report from the India Abroad News Service.

The curriculum committee decided later to implement the use of FOSS in the higher secondary sector and that has also been completed.

IT@school was set up as a government project to direct the implementation.

He told IANS that licences for proprietary versions of similar software would have incurred a minimum cost of Rs 150,000 per machine.

"Hence, the minimum savings in a year (considering 20,000 machines) is Rs 300 crore (three billion rupees or $58.6 million)," Sadath said.

"It's not the cost saving that matters more, but the fact that the Free Software licence enables not only teachers and students but also the general public an opportunity to copy, distribute and share the contents and use it as they wish," he said.

The GNU General Public Licence gives people the right to copy and share software. All changes made have to be also disclosed in the event that the software is distributed. The licence was created by the chairman of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman.

Stallman has visited Kerala many times and inaugurated the Indian chapter of FSF in the city of Trivandrum in 2001.

Link:
Indian state saves $58m annually by using free software - iTWire

It's kind of appalling what you don't know about filing your own tax return.

The Internal Revenue Service started the nation's tax season when it began accepting electronic tax returns at the end of January. More than 153 million individual tax returns expected to be filed in 2017. The first refunds claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) start arriving this week.

"For this tax season, it's more important than ever for taxpayers to plan ahead," says IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. "People should make sure they have their year-end tax statements in hand, and we encourage people to file as they normally would, including those claiming the credits affected by the refund delay. Even with these significant changes, IRS employees and the entire tax community will be working hard to make this a smooth filing season for taxpayers."

Granted, the IRS makes it a bit difficult for taxpayers to keep things straight by tweaking the process each year. This year, it's going to be particularly tough for folks who don't save their prior-year tax returns. If you're changing tax filing software or tax preparers this year, you're going to need the adjusted gross income from your 2015 tax return in order to file electronically -- as the Electronic Filing Pin is has been eliminated to prevent filing fraud.

Some changes, however, have more immediate benefits. This year, you don't have to file your federal tax return until April 18 this year, thanks to April 15 landing on a Saturday and Washington, D.C.'s Emancipation Day celebration taking place on Monday, April 18. That gives you some time to work out a plan of attack, if you haven't already, and find some places to cut into this year's tax return.

Continue reading here:
Your Ignorance of IRS Rules and Free Tax Software Is Costly - TheStreet.com

A federal appeals court upheld Marylands ban on popular AR-15-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines last week, delivering a significant win to gun-control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to military-style weapons.

Marylands ban, enacted in 2013 soon after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, was allowed to stand in a 10-4 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, that ruled the Second Amendment does not protect what the judges called exceptionally lethal weapons of war.

While the ruling is the fifth to uphold a state ban on assault weapons, according to The Trace, the Virginia federal appeals court is the highest yet to affirm a standard for classifying assault weapons, one gun advocates say will significantly narrow the scope of the Second Amendment. And one of the lawyers who brought the case now has set his sights on the Supreme Court.

It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected arm under the Second Amendment, Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said in a statement. The Second Amendment protects arms that are in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.

Like all constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is limited. For instance, civilians cant buy automatic weapons, like machine guns. But now seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning military-style automatic weapons like the AR-15, a version of which was used in the Sandy Hook massacre which took the lives of 26 people, mostly children and the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, where 49 were killed and 53 wounded.

In the past, circuit courts have relied on how common a weapon is when determining if its covered by the Second Amendment, according to Hannah Shearer, an attorney with the Law Center for Gun Violence Prevention. But with the 4th Circuit ruling, the judges gave new credence to a second standard: if a weapon could cause military-level destruction.

The AR-15, the Maryland ruling majority opinion reads, is simply the semiautomatic version of the M16 rifle used by our military and around the world. That deadly ancestry, according to the opinion, means that the Supreme Court excludes AR-15-type rifles and firearms like it from the Second Amendment.

Those AR-15-style rifles are some of the most popular firearms among U.S. consumers today.

[Under the ruling,] the Second Amendment doesnt even apply to the most common and popular semiautomatic rifles being sold today, said Jay Porter, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Maryland case. Its absurd.

But some gun control advocates say the common use standard alone is insufficient.

It would suggest that if the gun industry floods the market with an extremely dangerous destructive weapon, if they can flood the market quick enough before legislatures begin banning this product, then theres nothing a legislature can do about it because all of a [sudden] those products are in common use, said attorney Jon Lowry, director of the Brady Center to Fight Gun Violence Legal Action Project.

The common use test comes out of a 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v Heller. If a gun is in common use for law-abiding purposes, the test goes, then its protected by the Second Amendment. But in its Heller ruling, the Supreme Court introduced a second caveat: Weapons that are most useful in military service M-16 rifles and the like may be banned.

Besides outlawing the ownership of a class of assault weapons including semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips the Maryland law also prohibits the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines, which typically hold more than 10 rounds.

Gun lobby groups, however, have long argued that semiautomatic weapons are constitutionally protected.

But in the majority opinion, the federal appeals court judges reason that the difference between automatic and semiautomatic fire is only a matter of seconds between rounds. Instead, they emphasized high-capacity magazines and assault weapons ability to turn clubs and school into battlegrounds and their use in massacres from San Bernardino, California, to the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

While only 11 percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons equipped with them those shootings tended to be much deadlier than those committed with other firearms, according to the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

This opinion rested its reasoning on the facts of whats happening when people who shouldnt have them get ahold of weapons that were designed for military use and inflict horror and terror in public spaces, said Shearer. So in that respect, it provides an original blueprint for looking at those social problems and coming up with solutions for commonsense gun laws.

And that focus on military-level lethality, instead of commonality, is what lawyers across the aisle say might be the rulings greatest, or most misguided, legacy. Ultimately though, its anyones guess how many courts will follow the 4th Circuits lead. Or if theyll get the chance.

In the past, lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in state assault weapon cases didnt always send rulings to the Supreme Court for review, but Porter said he will. Basing an entire ruling on one half of a sentence in a Supreme Court case, he said, is not enough to restrict a constitutional right.

The real point is that no other court has done anything like this. Not even close, he said. [This is] the type of case that the Supreme Court should take, must take maybe will take.

Excerpt from:
Lethal weapons of war - VICE News