Mediaboss Marketing

Young patients at Victoria General Hospital now have access to a networking tool called Upopolis. It allows them to stay in touch with family and friends while they're undergoing treatment, but it also lets them make connections with other kids who share similar experiences.

"These benefits include being able to access medical content written specifically for the youth on Upopolisin kid friendly language, so they can better understand their illness and their diagnosis and their treatment plans," said Christina Papaevangelou, director of Kids' Health Links Foundation.

"It also enables connections with other patients who share similar diagnoses through public and private chat room discussions."

Upopolis is available to any young patient at Victoria General Hospital who is going through treatment, but they can also access the secure network when they're back at home.

"It really means a lot to them," said Papaevangelou.

"A lot of these youth have never met another person who has the same condition or diagnosis as them. Being able to meet a peer, maybe all the way across Canada, who really understands what they're going through, it helps them feel less alone, better understood."

The social network Upopolis allows sick kids to stay connected while they're in hospital. (Kids' Health Links Foundation)

It has the potential to help between 100 and 200 kids at Victoria General Hospital.

"We see patients here who have diabetes and other endocrine conditions," said Leah Dobell, manager for pediatric programs at Victoria General Hospital .

"We see patients who have cancer and blood disorders. We see patients who have cardiac conditions and we see patients with other varied complex, chronic conditions."

ButDobell thinks it will help young patients with rare conditions the most.

"Where there aren't other kids that they can be in touch with here locally, if they can find kids with the same or very similar condition on Upopolis and connect with them and share their experiences, I think it would be amazing," he said.

Access to Upopolis is restricted and monitored by adults with training in how to work with young hospital patients.

According to Dobell, that's part of what makes it unique.

"Other social media sites, like Facebook, are really all about glamorizing our lives, making us look as perfect and wonderful as possible," said Dobell.

"I think lots of kids don't want to post really personal stuff on those sites. So, to have a site where you can go on and just say, 'oh man, in the hospital again,' without having to explain why and what that means and the impact on their lives, I think it is just huge to be able to have peers who just get it."

Upopolis has been available in Canada since 2007. It's in almost every children's hospital in the country. The Victoria General Hospital is the first facility on the West Coast to join the social platform.

See the original post here:
A social network at Victoria General Hospital lets sick kids connect with each other - CBC.ca

History >> US Government The Fourth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. It protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. This means that the police can't search you or your house without a warrant or probable cause.

From the Constitution

Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution:

"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."

Reasons for the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment came about because of the actions of British tax collectors before the Revolutionary War. They would use general warrants to enter and search any house they wanted without needing evidence of wrongdoing. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect people from this sort of invasion of privacy from the government.

What is "searches and seizures"?

A "search" under the Fourth Amendment is when a public employee (like a police officer) looks at something that is considered "private". It typically takes two things in order for something to be considered "private":

1) the citizen thought it was private and it would not be able to be viewed by the public (For example, something inside a house would be private, something on the driveway could be viewed by anyone).

2) these expectations of privacy are realistic (It wouldn't be realistic to expect something on your driveway to be private).

When someone is "seized" they are not free to leave (like being arrested and placed in jail). When something is "seized" it cannot be taken back (like the police taking your wallet and not giving it back).

Judges Warrant

In order to conduct a legal "search" or "seizure" the police must have a warrant written by a judge. To get this warrant they must present evidence to the judge that some criminal activity has taken place. This assures that the police can't enter a person's home or arrest a person without evidence that has been reviewed by a judge.

Probable Cause

The Fourth Amendment also states that there must be "probable cause." This means that there is enough evidence to show that a crime has likely been committed. The police must have this evidence before any arrest or search. Any evidence found during the search does not count as probable cause.

How does this work in public schools?

The requirements for search and seizure are slightly different in the public schools. The Supreme Court has said that school officials and police officers can search a student if they have "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has occurred. This is less of a requirement than "probable cause."

Some Searches Are Allowed

There are certain places and situations where people are searched or stopped without a warrant. Consider the airport where everyone who flies is searched. When you agree to fly, you give up some of your Fourth Amendment rights. Another example is a roadblock that tests for drunk drivers. When you drive on public roads you give up some of your Fourth Amendment rights. These searches are generally accepted by the citizens for their own safety and protection.

Interesting Facts about the Fourth Amendment

To learn more about the United States government:

Works Cited

History >> US Government

Go here to see the original:
US Government for Kids: Fourth Amendment

The American Civil Liberties Union is moving to quash a police warrant granted to search data on a Facebook page of a group protesting the Dakota Access pipeline.

The American Civil Liberties Unionfiled a motion Wednesday to strike what it described as a far-reaching and unconstitutional request by the Whatcom County Sheriffs Department in Bellingham, Wash., to search the Facebook page of the Bellingham #NODAPL Coalition.

The coalition and other individuals across the country have engaged in protests against the Trump administrations plan to move forward on construction of the pipeline. The group is said to have been involved in a protest at Bellinghams U.S. Bank in early February.

According to the ACLU, the founder of the Facebook page received an email from Facebook on March 3 with a copy of the warrant issued to search the site. The message, cited by the ACLU in its filing, also indicated that a motion would need to be filed by March 8 to quash the warrant and that Facebook would otherwise respond to the legal process. The ACLU has posted a copy of the warrant on its website.

The motion argues that the warrant is unconstitutional because it permits a broad search of private electronic data protected by the First and Fourth Amendments.

The warrant at issue here is deeply problematic and runs afoul of constitutional protections.Political speech and the freedom to engage in political activity without being subjected to undue government scrutiny are at the heart of the First Amendment, La Rond Baker, staff attorney at the ACLU of Washington, said in a statement issued late Wednesday.

Further, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from performing broad fishing expeditions into private affairs. And seizing information from Facebook accounts simply because they are associated with protests of the government violates these core constitutional principles, Baker said.

The Whatcom County Sheriffs Department did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

The First Amendment protects political speech, the right to receive information, and the right to associate with others to engage in political speech and advocacy without state monitoring or interference. The warrant here intrudes on all of these rights and would chill both political speech and association at the heart of the First Amendment, the motion states.

The warrant also fails to meet the basic Fourth Amendment requirement that warrants be particularized, not least because it potentially extends to any member of the public, supportive or not, who interacted with the group."

This post was updated at 2:06 p.m.

More:
ACLU challenges warrant to search Facebook page of Dakota Access opponents - The Hill

March 9, 2017

A still redacted incident prompted both agencies to discuss concerns about computer hacking into government agencies

In April 1987, the CIAs Chief of Information Systems Security submitted a memo detailing a meeting he had recently had with the Director of the NSAs National Computer Security Security Center.

The meeting had been prompted by an earlier incident, still redacted, that had generated mass confusion.

Hints as to what the incident could have been can be gleaned from the meetings agenda, which tackled concerns about computer hacking into government agencies

and the fact that as of 1987, there were no reporting requirements for cybersecurity incidents at the federal level.

So, a few important takeaways from this meeting that changed the way federal agencies handle cybersecurity FOREVER. One, start reporting those incidents.

Two, start taking advantage of the NSAs existing database of fixes and, you know, apply them.

And three, make staff generally aware that cybersecurity is a thing, which would probably take care of 99% of the problem right there.

The CIA then sealed this historic partnership in the most literal way possible - handing their counterpart at the NSA a literal seal.

The full memo is embedded below.

Image via 20th Century FOX

Original post:
Thirty years ago, the CIA and the NSA had a meeting that changed national cybersecurity - MuckRock

Journalist Jason Leopold (currently in residence at Buzzfeed) has been given the nickname "FOIA terrorist" for his numerous requests and almost as numerous FOIA lawsuits. The government has taken notice of Leopold's activity. The Pentagon once offered Leopold a stack of documents in exchange for him leaving it alone. (He declined.) The FBI played keepaway with James Comey talking points, telling Leopold they were all exempt from disclosure. This obviously wasn't true, as these same talking points had been handed over to Mike Masnick by the agency months prior to the bogus denial it gave Leopold.

Now, it's the NSA using Leopold's "FOIA terrorist" nickname against him. (This is weird because federal employees gave Leopold the "terrorist" nickname. He didn't come up with it himself.) In Leopold's ongoing FOIA lawsuit against the agency, the NSA has asked for an "Open America" stay. What this would do is push Leopold's request back in line with the others the NSA has received. The agency argues that Leopold's decision to file a lawsuit over the agency's lack of a timely response shouldn't give his request precedence over FOIA requests that arrived before his did.

The agency points out its FOIA workload has increased significantly since "a former NSA contractor began a series of unprecedented, unauthorized, and unlawful disclosures" in 2013. The agency still processes thousands of FOIA requests a year, but it's unable to keep up with the increase in FOIA traffic.

What the NSA wants is more time. Three of Leopold's requests -- two of them dating back to 2014 -- are at the center of this lawsuit. The NSA wants to prevent Leopold's lawsuit from letting him jump the queue. From the filing [PDF]:

Given NSAs limited number of FOIA personnel, if the Court orders defendant to process plaintiffs requests at a rate greater than 400 pages per month, the individuals who filed the 1,603 pending requests in NSAs current backlog, many of which were filed well before plaintiffs, will be disadvantaged.

It also wants to process no more than 400 pages per month for him, despite there being more than 20,000 responsive pages.

In defense of its attempt to keep Leopold from litigating his way to the front of the line (and for delaying its already-delayed responses even further), the NSA attempts to use Leopold's press bio against him.

[P]laintiff Jason Leopold is a self-styled FOIA terrorist who, according to a recent press release by his new employer, BuzzFeed.com, makes his living by deluging the federal government with Freedom of Information Act requests. He proudly claims to have brought more FOIA lawsuits by himself than any other news organization except the New York Times.

Again, Leopold may be a "self-styled" FOIA enthusiast, but the government called him a "terrorist" first. And, again, the number of lawsuits means nothing. If the government replied in a more timely fashion, withheld fewer documents, and generally made a better effort at being transparent, it's unlikely Leopold would be chasing every FOIA request with a FOIA lawsuit.

While I agree with the NSA FOIA requesters shouldn't be able to use litigation to move their requests ahead of others (who may not have the financial means to engage in litigation), the fact is without litigation, most government responses would be delayed indefinitely. Agencies are statutorily required to respond within a certain time period. After that time has elapsed, the only option in most cases is to bring a lawsuit. Periodically reminding the agency about your outstanding request has almost zero motivational effect.

Handing out litigation stays doesn't mean requesters who haven't filed a lawsuit will be receiving faster responses. All it means is litigating requesters will be receiving their responses more slowly. The NSA's inference that Leopold's requests are somehow less legit simply because there are so many of them is bogus. I'm sure Leopold would rather have faster request fulfillment than the double-duty of tracking dozens of open requests and multiple concurrent FOIA lawsuits.

If the problem is staffing, there are solutions available -- but agencies have to want to be more responsive, not just shrug their way through FOIA lawsuit filings complaining about how impossible it is to keep up. They have direct lines to the legislators that pass their budgets. If they really wanted to do more, FOIA-wise, they'd have asked for more help already.

Read more from the original source:
NSA Tries To Stonewall Jason Leopold's Requests Because He's A ... - Techdirt