Mediaboss Marketing

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials. When the government oversteps its authority, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. With few exceptions, however, government surveillance focuses on protecting life, property and the American way. Private surveillance, on the other hand, is governed by no laws, and is conducted for self-interest and profit. In volume, stealth and intrusiveness, the private sector far surpasses anything the government has attempted or even contemplated doing. Yet, while Americans regularly read or hear about the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agencys (CIA) intrusion into their lives, not many seem to be accusing private companies like Walmart or the Ford Motor Company of spying on people. It comes down to whether Americans trust companies like Verizon, Target, and Google to respect their privacy more than they trust the US government. The intelligence communitys focus is on foreign threats and activities overseas. The CIA and NSA operate under strict rules and regulations, including a ban against collecting information on Americans. The current policy states that signals intelligence shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support national and departmental missions and not for any other purposes. The private sector, on the other hand, focuses on the bottom line and operates unfettered. Google a resort in Mexico, and see how ads for that destination continue to pop up every time you open your Internet browser. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. You cant imagine all the things going on behind the scenes that you arent able to see. Government surveillance, of course, increases when a known terrorist or other enemy of the United States contacts an American citizen. Following 9/11, NSA analysts were given limited access to the bad guys communication links to the United States. Even then, however, the privacy of American citizens remained a top priority. Going forward, if a known terrorist communicates with an American citizen, I suspect most Americans would feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching their back. Having spent more than 40 years as an intelligence officer, I know first-hand that the US intelligence community has made its share of mistakes (being dead wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and condoning torture spring readily to mind). And I continue to believe in the necessity of strict congressional oversight and restrictions, which separate the US intelligence community from other intelligence organizations like the KGB. This oversight is critical for an intelligence community serving a democratic country. It is true that the US intelligence community has at times been overzealous in protecting against terrorist threats and others who could do the United States harm, but not because it was seeking to pry into the private affairs of American citizens. For me, the NSA and Drug Enforcement Administrations (DEA) bulk collection and storage programs fall into the overzealous category. I am aware of the argument that more is better, but when weighed against privacy rights and the questionable predictive value of these materials, these arguments dont make sense. As in other areas, the Intelligence Community tends to overstate its capability to predict future events. I suspect the efforts to stop or disrupt terrorist attacks are on par with law enforcements (rather poor) record on stopping premeditated murders, kidnappings, and the spread of illegal drugs. For me, the larger problem is the massive effort by private companies to collect every bit of data they can about me: my health, what I buy, what I eat, where I shop, who I talk to, and on and on. All of this is done not only without my permission, but also without my knowledge and it is legal. Of course, I dont want the government snooping around in my private affairs any more than you do. Yet, if it is in the nations security interest and my privacy remains protected, access to my metadata doesnt seem like too much for my government to ask of me. The writer is the former head of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), US State Department. (In partnership with The Mark News)

Continue reading here:
Worrying about online privacy

Independent Katherine Zappone said the fundamental issue at stake was about the protection of a minoritys right to marry by opening a civil institution, to be protected and be able to become a constitutional family. Photographer: Dara Mac Dnaill /The Irish Times

Legislation to allow for a referendum on same sex marriage has been passed in the Seanad with a standing ovation by many of those supporting the Bill.

The Thirty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality Bill) was accepted by 29 votes to three in the Upper House after a week of sometimes heated debate.

The legislation now goes to the President for signature, having been passed by the Dil without a vote.

The Bill was passed as an opinion poll in The Irish Times showed a 6 per cent drop in support for the introduction of same sex marriage since December when the last poll was conducted. The referendum takes place on Friday, May 22nd.

Support stands at 74 per cent compared to 80 per cent in the last poll. Support for a No vote has risen 6 per cent to 26 per cent, when undecided voters are accounted for.

A number of amendments from Independent Ronn Mullen were rejected including that marriage equality should not have unintended consequences affecting what he called freedom of conscience issues.

Mr Mullen said that as a general principle, it should always be immoral and unlawful to discriminate against a person on grounds of his or her sexual orientation.

However, refusing to provide a service in circumstances which one perceives to link one with something with which one conscientiously disagrees is not the same thing.

He highlighted the case of a bakery in Belfast which refused to provide a cake for a civil partnership and was being prosecuted by what he called the equality people in the North.

View post:
Standing ovation as Seanad passes same sex marriage Bill

The Department of Justice recently edged closer to a rule change that would allow the FBI to track suspected criminals' computer activity more easily. The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted last week in favor of an update to Rule 41, which dictates how judges can issue search warrants on electronic devices, Government Executive reported. The new rule 41 would let judges OK warrants to examine computers remotely anywhere as opposed to only those in their districts. The FBI would also no longer would be required to give users notice ahead of its searches.

"The rule itself would be an acknowledgement that remote access searches are valid without notice, without special justification," Electronic Privacy Information Center general counsel Alan Butler told Gizmodo. "Notice is one of the essential procedural protections of the Fourth Amendment. Validating a rule that implies that notice will never happen does not comport with the Fourth Amendment."

The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.

The FBI has requested the rule change to better function in the 21st-century world of technology, DefenseOnereported. The agency would have more options, like the authority to secretly install tracking software on the computers of alleged criminals.

Privacy groups are opposed to this. Google came out against the Rule 41 change last week, arguing it raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide. The Department of Justice fired back, saying the amendment had been misread and would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law.

In any event, the proposal will next go before the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, then the Supreme Court. If approved, Gizmodo reported, Rule 41 could be updated by December 2016.

See the rest here:
Rule 41 Change Could Allow FBI To Get Warrants To Remotely Search Suspects' Computers Without Notice

Senate Votes Against Fourth Amendment Protection Act 720p
I am just a middleman trying to spread the word FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for entertainment purposes only. This constitutes...

By: Timothy anon

Go here to see the original:
Senate Votes Against Fourth Amendment Protection Act 720p - Video

The rules for how the Department of Justice tracks down criminals in the digital age are woefully arcane, but the DoJ's recent proposed changes to update those rules go way too far, using vague terms to grant sweeping remote search powers that would take a torrential horse piss on the Fourth Amendment.

Under the auspices of probable cause, it'd give FBI agents the power to install tracking malware on computers all over the world, without telling people they've started surveillance. Even though it looks like a minor rule change, the proposal would make it much easier for FBI agents to get warrants on computers without first figuring out their exact location. It gives judges much more flexibility on handing out remote search warrants outside of their jurisdictions. And that would give federal agents way more power to search computers.

This proposal isn't just the DOJ being Big Brothery for no reason. Remote computer searches are difficult to execute right now and that's an obstacle for combating digital crime and hunting criminals who use anonymizing software. This is a real problem, and something that needs to be addressed. But not this way. This is like using a nuke instead of a sniper rifle, and it's going to blow up our privacy rights.

I'm not going to lie, I didn't think I'd ever write an article about a DOJ procedural change because frankly, that sounds like comically dull policy housekeeping. And comically dull is what they were going for: It's a lot easier to slip in a major expansion of power if no one cares enough to pay attention.

But this proposal is way too big not to notice, no matter how boring-sounding and rote the DOJ tries to make it.

"Basically, we think this is a substantive legal change masquerading as a mere procedural rule change," Electronic Frontier Foundation staff counsel Hanni Fakhoury told me via email. "The government is essentially pushing for approval of the idea that it should have the power to deploy malware and execute remote searches. To us, it seems like that's a decision Congress should make."

The vague language of these rules could galvanize an avalanche of covert government surveillance by making it totally OK in certain situations to search peoples' computers without ever letting them know. And that's a violation of the Bill of Rights hidden inside a wonky-sounding procedural adjustment.

Right now, law enforcement officials can get a warrant to search computers remotely, as long as they have probable cause. But, apart from rare, limited circumstances, they need to find the right jurisdiction to petition for a warrant, and they need to give notice of their searches to whoever they're investigating. Notice is an important part of our Fourth Amendment privacy right. It's generally not legal for FBI agents to search you and never tell you. Except this change would make it so.

"The rule itself would be an acknowledgement that remote access searches are valid without notice, without special justification," Electronic Privacy Information Center general counsel Alan Butler told me. "Notice is one of the essential procedural protections of the Fourth Amendment. Validating a rule that implies that notice will never happen does not comport with the Fourth Amendment."

Read the original:
The DOJ Is Sneaking in a Policy That'd Crap All Over the 4th Amendment