One woman"s incredible VHS collection will live forever on the Internet

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

One woman"s incredible VHS collection will live forever on the Internet

Congressman: President’s Push To End Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection

posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 09:49 AM

“It actually expands the scope of collection, of unconstitutional collection. It is called the “End Bulk Collection Act.” It is like we are in some dystopian future where government calls a bill something that has the opposite affect of what title is.” says Rep. Amash.

The major point brought up by the Congressman is that despite the name “End Bulk Collection”, the bill does not to end collection of data, rather it shifts the responsibility of collection from the NSA to private phone companies.

“They are going to transfer where the phone data is collected so that it is not stored by the government but it is instead stored by the phone companies. Where it is stored is not really the main problem.”

Congressman: President’s Push To End Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection

Seems like every bill in Congress now is named exactly opposite what it does.

Dystopian future in deed.

I cry for my country.

AboveTopSecret.com New Topics In Breaking Alternative News

Congressman: President’s Push To End Data Collection, Will Actually Increase Collection

Just Updated: MRC"s Collection of Studies Showing Journalists" Liberal Views

As 2014 begins, the MRC has just updated of our “Media Bias 101” resource page, which now links to nearly 50 articles summarizing decades of scholarly research showing the mostly liberal attitudes of American journalists, plus opinion polls showing the public’s growing recognition of the media’s liberal bias. The package also includes dozens of quotes from reporters denying this bias, plus a few notable instances of media figures admitting their tilt.

If you’ve ever found yourself looking for research on this topic, this is a good page to bookmark; our goal is to update the page with fresh material when it becomes available. Most of the pages include full-color charts illustrating key points; there’s also a fully-formatted, 48-page PDF version containing much (but not all) of the data included in this section.

Key stats and links to major studies after the jump

One of the new pages added this year summarizes research uncovered by Northeastern University professor William G. Mayer for a 2009 academic paper, “The Political Attitudes of American Journalists: A Survey of Surveys.” The first study that attempted to gauge journalists’ political views was conducted in 1962, and found self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives by a 2-to-1 margin.

Other key studies documenting that journalists have, for decades, proven to be far more liberal than the public they purport to serve:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

■ In the late 1970s, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter found 54% of top journalists “placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19% who chose the right side of the spectrum.’ They also discovered that between 81% and 94% reported voting for the Democratic candidate in presidential elections from 1964-1976.

■ In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled news and editorial staffers at newspapers around the country, and found self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal at that time.

■ In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 journalists at 61 newspapers, and found those calling themselves “liberal/Democrat” outnumbered “conservative/Republican” by a four-to-one margin (61% to 15%).

■ In 2001, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found four times as many ‘media professionals’ said they considered themselves ‘liberal’ (25%) than called themselves ‘conservative’ (6%). And, more than six times as many media professionals called themselves Democrats (27%), than said they were Republicans (just 4%).

■ In 2004, the Pew Research Center found that the proportion of liberals in the national media had actually grown over the previous nine years, from 22% in 1995 to 34% in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives remained minuscule: just 4% in 1995, 7% in 2004.

As for what the public thinks of the media:

■ A 1996 poll of 3,000 Americans conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found “those who see a liberal tilt outnumber those who detect a conservative bias by more than a two to one margin….Even self-described liberals agree: 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22 percent who find the news to be conservative.”

■ In Gallup polls conducted nearly every year from 2001 through 2013, the percentage saying the media are too liberal has ranged from 44 percent to 48 percent; the percentage seeing the media as too conservative never exceeded 19 percent.

■ No fewer than five different polls conducted during the 2008 presidential campaign found the public strongly believed the news media were biased in favor of Democrat Barack Obama. A Pew Research Center poll released in late October of that year found “by a margin of 70% – 9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.”

■ A Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted in February 2013 found two in five voters (41%) “think the average media reporter is more liberal than they are,” compared with just 18 percent “who feel the average reporters is more conservative than they are.”

And, a few of the more-recent quotes of journalists defying the evidence and denying their bias:

■ “I can see how the intensity of coverage on certain issues may, to some people, seem to reflect a liberal point of view. But I actually don’t think it does.”

— New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson talking about her newspaper’s political slant in an interview with the New Republic’s Michael Kinsley, August 20, 2013.

■ “It’s silly that there’s a liberal bias in media. Obviously, there are liberal voices and there are conservative voices. But overwhelmingly, media in the United States — television, newspapers, and that sort of thing — the bias shifts towards the right. It’s a center-right media in this country.”

— Former NBC News reporter and New York Times columnist Bob Herbert on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry, April 27, 2013.

■ “My work has been so cleansed, as I see it, and as I’ve tried, of political opinions over 27 years…. No one gives a rat’s patootie about my opinion, so it’s nice that I don’t have to share it.”

— NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams on Alec Baldwin’s Here’s the Thing New York City radio show, March 4, 2013.

■ “Most of us, do not — you don’t know whether we’re Republicans or Democrats or exhibitionists.”

— Co-host Barbara Walters on ABC’s The View, April 9, 2012.

■ “There may be liberals on TV at MSNBC, but the network is not operating with a political objective.”

— MSNBC 9pm ET host Rachel Maddow in a December 21, 2011 interview posted at Slate.com.

For much, much more, check out the MRC’s “Media Bias 101” section.

NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Just Updated: MRC"s Collection of Studies Showing Journalists" Liberal Views

COBURN TO CUT SENATE TERM SHORT – Obama to call for NSA phone collection overhaul – CONGRESS OKs $1T OMNIBUS -- Weinstein, Streep to take aim at NRA in "Senator"s Wife"

By Scott Wong (swong@politico.com or @scottwongDC)

COBURN TO CUT SENATE TERM SHORT – Alexander Burns and Burgess Everett report for the hometown paper: “Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn confirmed Thursday night that he will not serve out his full Senate term and intends to step down after 2014 because of deepening health problems. In a statement, Coburn acknowledged that he is battling a serious recurrence of cancer and said he would continue to fight for his priorities during the remainder of his time in office. ‘Carolyn and I have been touched by the encouragement we’ve received from people across the state regarding my latest battle against cancer. But this decision isn’t about my health, my prognosis or even my hopes and desires,’ Coburn said. ‘As a citizen, I am now convinced that I can best serve my own children and grandchildren by shifting my focus elsewhere.’ …

– “The 65-year-old physician’s decision to resign marks a shift in his plans: In an interview earlier this month, he said he believed he was ‘plenty healthy enough to serve out my term,’ but acknowledged that circumstances could change. … Coburn’s departure from the Senate will cut short a nine-year career in the chamber and a longer tenure in Congress that dates back to the 1994 Republican revolution. An obstetrician by training, Coburn served six years in the House — often clashing with his GOP colleagues as well as Democrats and participating in attempt to depose then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich — before standing by a pledge to step down after three terms. …

– “Coburn has fought cancer on and off for years: In addition to the recurrence of prostate cancer that he announced in November, Coburn has also grappled with melanoma and colon cancer. He had brain surgery about six years ago as a result of a benign brain tumor. As of last week, he was facing the prospect of serious surgery that would require doctors to enter through the rib cage – a procedure serious enough that Coburn had already begun to discuss the possible ramifications for his Senate career with close family and friends.” http://politi.co/1j5GJ8P

The Oklahoman, A1 1-col lead: “COBURN PLANS TO RESIGN EARLY,” By Chris Casteel: “…Coburn’s decision could set off a major scramble among Republicans hoping to replace him. U.S. Reps. Tom Cole, R-Moore; James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City; and Jim Bridenstine, R-Tulsa; will likely consider the race, along with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Coburn timed his resignation so his replacement could be elected during the regular ballot process this year. It will be a very compressed time frame for a statewide race, particularly for those who don’t have statewide name recognition.” http://bit.ly/1dBhGLi PDF front page: http://bit.ly/1i57o84

– REPUBLICAN LEADER MITCH McCONNELL issued this statement: “Tom Coburn is without question one of the most intelligent, principled, and decent men in modern Senate history and a lasting credit to his beloved Oklahoma. … With his nearly 20 years of service in the House and later in the Senate, Tom has set a moral example for lawmakers at every level of government through his integrity, grit, and fearlessness in taking on problems others find either too difficult or too unglamorous.”

– PRESIDENT OBAMA, writing last year for TIME’s 100 most influential people: “The people of Oklahoma are lucky to have someone like Tom representing them in Washington — someone who speaks his mind, sticks to his principles and is committed to the people he was elected to serve.” The two developed an unlikely friendship when Obama was serving in the Senate:  http://ti.me/1b7Tzhs

PROGRAMMING NOTE – Huddle will be off on Monday in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Have a great long weekend. We’ll see you back here on Tuesday.

LAWMAKERS PITCH BILL TO REVIVE VOTING RIGHTS ACT – Mike Lillis writes for The Hill: “A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would restore the voting protections shot down by the Supreme Court last year. Sponsored by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the proposal attempts to ensure voters’ rights by requiring certain regions with a recent history of racial discrimination to secure federal approval before changing their election rules. The bill would reduce the number of states requiring federal pre-clearance from nine to four, leaving Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia still covered under that provision of the old law.” http://bit.ly/1gUK89j

OBAMA TO CALL FOR OVERHAUL OF NSA’S PHONE-DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM – Mark Landler reports for the New York Times: “President Obama will lay out plans on Friday morning to pull back the government’s wide net of surveillance at home and abroad, in a speech that administration officials say will stake out a middle ground between the far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and the concerns of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Obama is expected to outline plans to put more limits on the bulk collection of telephone calls; tighten privacy safeguards for foreigners, particularly heads of state; and propose a new public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. …  But he will stop short of turning over the storage of phone data to a consortium of telecommunications companies, according to officials …” http://nyti.ms/1dBjpAm

– OBAMA delivers his remarks at 11 a.m. at the Justice Department.

THE ROGERS REPORT: CONGRESS OKs $ 1.1T SPENDING BILL – “A landmark $ 1.1 trillion spending bill cleared Congress Thursday evening after conservative resistance collapsed in the Senate and tea party favorite Ted Cruz dropped his insistence on a vote on funding for President Barack Obama’s health care plan,” David Rogers reports. “On back-to-back 72-26 roll calls, senators voted to cut off debate and then quickly adopted the bill, which keeps the government funded through September. Seventeen Republicans backed passage, but as with the December budget accord, a majority did not. The divisions show again how much the Senate –even more than the House—has become a partisan battleground. Once again Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opted to be a “nay” despite the overwhelming support of House Republicans for the measure.

– “The giant package, which Obama has pledged to sign, is very much a product of that same budget agreement last month. But if December set the limits on spending, this bill now spells out where the dollars will go. And as such, it sets a new template for appropriations for the remainder of the president’s second term.” http://politi.co/1dqCvq7

– A WOMAN, Barbara Mikulski, once again was at the center of this major legislative deal. On A1 of the Washington Post, Ed O’Keefe takes another look at women’s growing influence on Capitol Hill: http://wapo.st/1ac8NaF

WEINSTEIN, STREEP TO TARGET NRA IN ‘THE SENATOR’S WIFE’ – Greg Gilman reports for TheWrap: “Harvey Weinstein promised that an upcoming film he’s making, starring Meryl Streep, will make the National Rifle Association ‘wish they weren’t alive’ during an interview with Howard Stern earlier this week, and now it has a title. A Weinstein Co. spokeswoman told TheWrap on Thursday that the film will be called ‘The Senator’s Wife.’ ‘I think the NRA is a disaster area. I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard. I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on,’ Weinstein told Stern on Wednesday. ‘And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.’ Weinstein described the film as a ‘big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’’ which he hopes will make audiences think: ‘Gun stocks — I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.’” http://bit.ly/1dB5vwk

– SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TEXAS) fired back at Weinstein, calling the studio head a hypocrite for using violence in his own films. “Citing Quentin Tarantino’s 2003 film ‘Kill Bill’ — which Weinstein produced — the Texas senator said the sword fight at the end of the movie is ‘one of the most epically violent scenes.’” POLITICO’s Lucy McCalmont: http://politi.co/1j7Lper

GOOD FRIDAY MORNING, JAN. 17, 2014, and welcome to The Huddle, your-play-play preview of all the action on Capitol Hill. Send tips, suggestions, comments, complaints and corrections to swong@politico.com. If you don’t already, please follow me on Twitter @scottwongDC.

My new followers include @BreitbartNews and @repcorygardner.

TODAY IN CONGRESS – Both the House and Senate have adjourned through next week for the January recess. They return the week of Jan. 27.

AROUND THE HILL – Rep. Frank Wolf speaks on the Omnibus Appropriations bill at 1 p.m. in HVC Studio A.

FEINSTEIN DEFENDS HILLARY ON BENGHAZI – Ginger Gibson writes for POLITICO: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein is strongly defending former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from criticism in the wake of a Senate report that condemned the State Department for not averting a preventable attack on a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. ‘I want the record to be clear: I condemn any effort to use this report for political purposes,’ said Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She was referring to remarks from Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) on the Senate floor on Thursday that were critical of the role Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, for not doing enough to prevent the attack.” http://politi.co/1eWFxSy

GATES, REID SQUABBLE OVER NEW BOOK – POLITICO’s Philip Ewing has the story: “Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired back at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday night, quipping that ‘it’s common practice on the Hill to vote on bills you haven’t read, and it’s perfectly clear Sen. Reid has not read the book.’ Reid faulted Gates’s book in an interview with The Associated Press earlier in the day, charging Gates had denigrated him, Vice President Joe Biden and others ‘just to make a buck.’ But Gates said he plans to donate most of what he makes to charities that work with wounded troops, and encouraged Reid and others to actually read his new memoir.” http://politi.co/1av7huA

FRIST’S MISERABLE FLIGHT – Michael Cass writes for The Tennessean: “Apparently being a multimillionaire former Senate majority leader doesn’t guarantee smooth access to the sky. Bill Frist, the former U.S. senator from Tennessee, went on a Twitter rant against United Airlines this afternoon, complaining that he was bumped from a first-class seat and then seated next to a very noisy bathroom.

Bill Frist, M.D. @bfrist: United Air @United miserable service again. SanFran sold me and confirmed a seat then took it away: Flt 1486 today

@bfrist: I can confirm that the toilets on this @united flight work! My seat vibrates with each passenger’s visit!

@bfrist: I also appreciate what @united is doing to keep the plane’s weight down. Bathroom walls this thin have got to be fuel-saving!

@bfrist: Thanks @united. Connection made; all is well. But do you refund passengers for selling seats that don’t exist? http://tnne.ws/1czTx1H

PELOSI PLACES WAGER ON NINERS GAME – Either way, someone will be eating well after Sunday’s San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks matchup. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Washington state’s Congressional Delegation have made a friendly wager over the much-anticipated NFC championship game. From the leader’s office; “If the Seahawks win, Pelosi will provide the Washington delegation with San Francisco sourdough bread from Boudin’s Bakery and chocolate from Ghirardelli and TCHO.  If the 49ers win, Pelosi will receive Theo’s chocolate from Congressman Jim McDermott, Brown & Haley Almond Roca toffees from Congressman Adam Smith, Fischer fair scones from Congressman Denny Heck, craft gin from Everett’s Bluewater Distilling in Congressman Rick Larsen’s district, Woodinville wine and smoked salmon from Congresswoman Suzan DelBene, and apples from Amy’s Decadent Chocolates courtesy of Congressman Derek Kilmer. … ‘Seattle may try to keep our fans out of their stadium, but they will not keep the 49ers out of their end zone,’ Pelosi said.”

THURSDAY’S TRIVIA WINNER – We’ll give credit to two winners: Shelby Boxenbaum correctly answered that Bruce King served as New Mexico governor during the 1970s, 80s and 90s, while our own White House editor Dan Berman answered that Bill Clinton served as Arkansas governor during those same three decades.  Other correct answers were Bill Janklow of South Dakota, Edwin Edwards of Louisiana, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts and Jim Hunt of North Carolina.

TODAY’S TRIVIA – Bruce Tannahill has a follow-up question: Who served as governor of the same state in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s? The first person to correctly answer gets a mention in the next day’s Huddle. Email me atswong@politico.com.

GET HUDDLE emailed to your Blackberry, iPhone or other mobile device each morning. Just enter your email address where it says “Sign Up.” http://www.politico.com/huddle/

POLITICO – Top 10 – Huddle

COBURN TO CUT SENATE TERM SHORT – Obama to call for NSA phone collection overhaul – CONGRESS OKs $1T OMNIBUS -- Weinstein, Streep to take aim at NRA in "Senator"s Wife"

NSA gets win in court over bulk data collection

• NEW: The ruling makes it likely the Supreme Court will have to tackle the issue of privacy


• A federal judge rules the NSA collection of phone metadata is legal


• A different judge said last week the surveillance was likely unconstitutional


• Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the surveillance

Washington (CNN) — The National Security Agency notched a much-needed win in court Friday after a series of setbacks over the legality and even the usefulness of its massive data collection program.

A federal judge in New York ruled the NSA’s bulk collection of data on nearly every phone call made in the United States was legal.

Gellman: Snowden’s mission accomplished

Obama addresses NSA reforms

Dennis Blair on anger towards NSA

Obama: I’m confident NSA isn’t snooping

The ruling contrasts with another ruling last week by a federal judge in Washington, who called the same program “almost Orwellian” and likely unconstitutional.

In his ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge William Pauley said the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act was legal. The program was revealed in classified leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

“But the question of whether that program should be conducted is for the other two coordinate branches of government to decide,” said the ruling by Pauley, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case, said it would appeal Pauley’s ruling.

“We are extremely disappointed with this decision, which misinterprets the relevant statutes, understates the privacy implications of the government’s surveillance and misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to read away core constitutional protections,” said Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU’s deputy legal director.

Review: NSA snooping program should stay in place

President Barack Obama is examining a review of the surveillance efforts that recommended changes in how the NSA program was conducted. Obama said last week he would decide what to do about it in January.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata — phone records of the time and numbers called without any disclosure of content — apparently violates privacy rights.

His preliminary ruling favored five plaintiffs challenging the practice, but Leon limited the decision only to their cases.

“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” said Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.”

Leon’s ruling said the “plaintiffs in this case have also shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim,” adding “as such, they too have adequately demonstrated irreparable injury.”

He rejected the government’s argument that a 1979 Maryland case provided precedent for the constitutionality of collecting phone metadata, noting that public use of telephones had increased dramatically in three decades.

Leon also noted the government “does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”

However, he put off enforcing his order barring the government from collecting the information, pending an appeal by the government.

A Justice Department spokesman said in response to Leon’s ruling that “we believe the program is constitutional as previous judges have found.”

Explosive revelations this year by Snowden triggered new debate about national security and privacy interests in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

Snowden’s disclosures led to more public disclosure about the secretive legal process that sets in motion the government surveillance.

The NSA has admitted it received secret court approval to collect vast amounts of metadata from telecom giant Verizon and leading Internet companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and Facebook.

The case before Leon involved approval for surveillance in April by a judge at a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that handles individual requests for electronic surveillance for “foreign intelligence purposes.”

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the 1970s, the secret courts were set up to grant certain types of government requests — wiretapping, data analysis and other monitoring of possible terrorists and spies operating in the United States.

The Patriot Act that Congress passed after the 9/11 attacks broadened the government’s ability to conduct anti-terrorism surveillance in the United States and abroad, eventually including the metadata collection.

In order to collect the information, the government has to demonstrate it is “relevant” to an international terrorism investigation.

However, the 1978 FISA law lays out exactly what the special court must decide: “A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside a nondisclosure order may grant such petition only if the judge finds that there is no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.”

In defending the program, Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA’s director, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that “15 separate judges of the FISA Court have held on 35 occasions that Section 215 (of the Patriot Act) authorizes the collection of telephony metadata in bulk in support of counterterrorism investigations.”

Initially, telecommunications companies such as Verizon were the targets of legal action against Patriot Act provisions. Congress later gave retroactive immunity to those private businesses.

The New York ruling makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to tackle the issue of privacy and settle the dispute over the the NSA program.

For years, the courts have relied on a 1979 Supreme Court precedent that found privacy rights didn’t extend to personal information people give to third-parties such as the phone companies, which store basic data on calls made. The secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has relied on that ruling to periodically reauthorize the NSA phone data program.

But technology has come a long way since then; modern cell phones are in constant communication with phone towers and tell a lot more information about phone customers than old land line phones. And at least some justices may be ready to take on the issue again.

Ruling last year in an unrelated case, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the 1979 standard may be “ill suited to the digital age” because people reveal a lot more information in seemingly mundane tasks.

“It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties,” she wrote.

CNN’s Bill Mears and Tom Cohen contributed to this report.

CNN.com – Politics

NSA gets win in court over bulk data collection

Increasing Data Collection and Surveillan​ce in the North American Homeland

Some of the corporate interests that are steering the U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border integration agenda are not quite satisfied with its progress so far and they would like the implementation process to be accelerated. The bilateral initiative which was launched almost two years ago promotes a shared vision for perimeter security. It seeks to improve information sharing between security agencies. Under the agreement, both countries are moving towards a coordinated entry/exit system and are developing a harmonized cargo security strategy. In addition, the U.S. and Canada are strengthening integrated cross-border intelligence sharing and law enforcement operations. Canada’s own electronic eavesdropping agency is also working hand and hand with the NSA. They are both increasing data collection and surveillance in the North American Homeland.

Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt gave a speech at the Association of Canadian Port Authorities annual conference in August. She stated that, “Ensuring the security of our transportation systems is key to strengthening the Canada-U.S. trade relationship. To build prosperity through trade, businesses and governments on both sides of our shared border must have confidence that our transportation systems will work together to meet our mutual security needs. That is why Canada and the United States are working closely together to implement the Beyond the Border Action Plan.” While she didn’t reference the Maritime Commerce Resilience Project by name, Raitt acknowledged that the U.S. and Canada are, “developing a joint cross-border approach to help maritime commerce recover faster after a major disruption.” This would include a significant natural disaster or terrorist attack that impacts North America. She also mentioned a pilot program underway at the Port of Prince Rupert which is part of efforts to harmonize the cargo screening process between the U.S. and Canada. Both countries continue to advance this agenda through the Integrated Cargo Security Strategy, a key component of the Beyond the Border deal.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) is an influential organization that lobbies the government on behalf of Canada’s largest corporations. Throughout the years, they have tirelessly pushed for deeper continental integration. In a letter sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, John Manley, President and CEO of the CCCE lays out what some of the Conservative Party’s priorities should be in the next session of parliament. As far as the North American partnership goes, the CCCE called on Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to further strengthen and renew their trilateral relationship. This includes forging a North American energy advantage through projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline which it noted was, “An essential step is the development of a comprehensive strategy to expand and enhance cross-border energy infrastructure.” The CCCE’s letter to Prime Minister Harper also stressed that, “The Canada-U.S. Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation initiatives that you helped launch two years ago hold much promise, although so far tangible benefits have been few and far between.” In other words, big business who have to most to gain from these agreements want to speed up the whole process of North American integration.

At the end of June, the Department of Homeland Security and the Canada Border Services Agency began Phase II of the Entry/Exit System, a commitment of the Beyond the Border action plan. The project builds on Phase I which involved collecting and exchanging biographic information at four selected land border crossings. Phase II has been expanded to include the exchange of biographic entry data collected from third-country nationals and permanent residents of Canada and the U. S. at all common ports of entry. In 2014, they will also start sharing biometric information at the border. Both countries are moving closer to fully implementing a biometric entry and exit data system. They are laying the groundwork for the creation of a North American biometric ID card. The U.S. and Canada are further merging databases and are expanding surveillance and intelligence gathering activities.

On July 12, Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester chaired the hearing, Protecting our Northern Border: Enhancing Collaboration and Building Local Partnerships. The meeting emphasized how, “Securing such an expansive border requires a multi-faceted approach. In addition to a smart and effective deployment of technology and manpower, we must also be doing everything we can to ensure federal, local, state and Canadian partners are working very closely and collaboratively.” It also described other, “opportunities for collaboration and cost-sharing, including stronger partnerships between agencies, local officials, tribes and the private sector.” Before the hearings took place, Senator Tester talked to the CBC about the prospect of deploying a high-tech cable sensor along the U.S.-Canada border. This would include the installation of the Blue Rose in-ground perimeter defense security system. The low-level surveillance radar is based on fibre optic technology which is used, “to detect sound and vibration transmitted by intruders such as people walking or running and moving vehicles near the sensor.” The increased militarization of the northern border is forcing Canada to further comply with U.S.-style security measures.

A controversial U.S.-Canada cross-border law enforcement initiative which is essentially a land based version of the Shiprider program has been delayed due to legal ramifications. Under the Beyond the Border perimeter security plan, the Next Generation pilot project which would create integrated teams in areas such as intelligence and criminal investigations was scheduled to be launched in the summer of 2012. According to an RCMP memo, the U.S. is demanding that its agents taking part in the bilateral undertaking be exempt from Canadian law. This has raised serious concerns about transparency, accountability and responsibility. It is yet another attempt by the U.S. to chip away at Canadian sovereignty. An article by Michael Harris warned that, “Once you give the U.S a platform to carry weapons and perform investigative duties inside our country, how far will they push the next envelope?” The pilot project is part of the process of further acclimating U.S. policing activities in Canada. As part of a North American security perimeter, both countries continue to expand the nature and scope of joint law enforcement operations, along with intelligence collection and sharing.

An example on how North America is being increasingly viewed a single entity occurred several months back during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein displayed a map that was designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) which showed domestic and global terror activity that it has allegedly helped disrupt. When it came to North America, the diagram identified Canada and Mexico as part of the U.S. Homeland. While the move garnered a lot of speculation, RT pointed out, “Whatever the reason for the NSA’s creation of the Homeland, the spy agency has already been condemned for failing to respect the sovereignty of other nations through its extensive data-collection efforts.” The NSA is also working in close partnership with Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC). An article from Global Research explained that, “the two organizations have integrated personnel—i.e. swap personnel to improve seamless collaboration. They also share Internet surveillance programs.” It went on to say that the NSA, “shares information on Canadians’ communications with Canada’s national security apparatus in exchange for information that CSEC gathers on Americans.”

The never ending war on terrorism is being used to justify the huge police state security apparatus being assembled. This includes the militarization of the northern border and the creation of a North American security perimeter. In the name of national security, there has been a steady erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights in both the U.S. and Canada. Our freedoms are under assault. The amount of information being collected and shared on all aspects of our daily lives has expanded and is being stored in massive databases. Sweeping new surveillance powers targeting terrorists and other criminals are being increasingly turned against those who are critical of government policy. There is a concerted effort to demonize political opponents, activists, protesters and other peaceful groups. We are witnessing the criminalization of dissent where those who oppose the government’s agenda are being labelled as terrorists and a threat to security.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel:
Canada Being Assimilated Into a U.S. Dominated North American Security Perimeter
U.S.-Canada Harmonizing Border Security and Immigration Measures
U.S.-Canada Integrated Cybersecurity Agenda
The Pretext for a North American Homeland Security Perimeter

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at Be Your Own Leader
 

BlackListedNews.com

Increasing Data Collection and Surveillan​ce in the North American Homeland

NSA Admits Bulk Collection of Cell Phone Location Data, But Don’t Worry, This Was Only a Test

Via: New York Times:

The National Security Agency conducted a secret pilot project in 2010 and 2011 to test the collection of bulk data about the location of Americans’ cellphones, but the agency never moved ahead with such a program, according to intelligence officials.

The existence of the pilot project was reported on Wednesday morning by The New York Times and later confirmed by James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The project used data from cellphone towers to locate people’s cellphones.

In his testimony, Mr. Clapper revealed few details about the project. He said that the N.S.A. does not currently collect locational information under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision the government says is the legal basis for the N.S.A.’s once-secret program under which it collects logs of all domestic calls from telephone companies.

“In 2010 and 2011, N.S.A. received samples in order to test the ability of its systems to handle the data format, but that data was not used for any other purpose and was never available for intelligence analysis purposes,” Mr. Clapper said.

He added that the N.S.A. had promised to notify Congress and seek the approval of a secret surveillance court in the future before any locational data was collected using Section 215.

An official familiar with the test project said its purpose was to see how the locational data would flow into the N.S.A.’s systems. While real data was used, it was never drawn upon in any investigation, the official said. It was unclear how many Americans’ locational data was collected as part of the project, whether the agency has held on to that information or why the program did not go forward.

BlackListedNews.com

NSA Admits Bulk Collection of Cell Phone Location Data, But Don’t Worry, This Was Only a Test

A Collection of Islamic Exorcism Videos

Who you gonna call? Jinnbusters!

Islamic Exorcism

 

LOTS MORE ON THE NEXT PAGE

 

Exorcism in Islam

Another Exorcism in Islam

Interview with Christian Jinns

Conversation With Jinn : The Urban Jinns

Interview With Jinn : Ghost of The Pop Star Grave

Interview With Jinn : The Fairy Godmother

REAL Jinn speaking about Illuminati

The post A Collection of Islamic Exorcism Videos appeared first on disinformation.

disinformation

A Collection of Islamic Exorcism Videos