Custom Search
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

EQUIFAX SECURITY BREACH WILL HAPPEN AGAIN (COMPANIES SHARING INFO & SCREENING CREDIT FOR JOBS)



#EQUIFAX

EQUIFAX SECURITY BREACH WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN (COMPANIES SCREENING CREDIT FOR JOBS):

AS LONG AS COMPANIES SHARE CUSTOMER INFO AND USE CREDIT TO HIRE PEOPLE (EVEN FAST FOOD JOBS) SUCH SECURITY BREACHES WILL CONTINUE.

CONGRESS DOESN'T CARE BECAUSE MANY CONGRESS MEMBERS OWN STOCK SHARES IN EQUIFAX.


Sources: LA Times, MSN



***** Here are all the ways the Equifax data breach is worse than you can imagine


Another day, another massive data breach. Except this one involves Equifax, one of the credit-monitoring companies you might expect to be ultrasensitive to the importance of safeguarding your personal information from hackers.

Instead, the company revealed on Thursday, the personal data of 143 million U.S. consumers in its care — nearly half the country — was potentially compromised.

The data now at large includes names, Social Security numbers, birthdates, addresses and driver’s license numbers, all of which can be used fraudulently to validate the identity of someone trying to open a bank or credit account in another person’s name.

In some cases, Equifax says, the security questions and answers used on some websites to verify users’ identity may also have been exposed. Having that information in hand would allow hackers to change their targets’ passwords and other account settings.

"The fact that the breached entity (Equifax) is offering to sign consumers up for its own identity protection services strikes me as pretty rich." Quote by Security Expert Brian Krebs

This isn’t the largest data breach ever — that crown belongs to Yahoo, which allowed account information for 500 million people to be hacked. But it has several elements that make it much worse than the usual. The breadth of the hacked information is one.

Another is the signal it sends that firms like Equifax are much more concerned about collecting personal information than protecting it.

Here are three others:

— Equifax waited six weeks to disclose the breach. The firm says it discovered the breach, which it reports began in mid-May, on July 29.

That’s six weeks that consumers could have been victimized without their knowledge and therefore left without the ability to take countermeasures. Equifax hasn’t explained the delay.

— Three Equifax executives sold shares after the discovery of the breach and before its public disclosure, according to Bloomberg. They collected $1.8 million from the sales, which weren’t part of any prearranged option-execise programs. The sales were made on Aug. 1 and 2, the third and fourth days after the breach was discovered.

An Equifax spokeswoman says the executives were unaware of the breach at the time of their sales, but that’s hardly comforting: One was John Gamble, the firm’s chief financial officer. If the firm’s No. 2 executive wasn’t immediately informed about a catastrophic security breach, why not?

In any case, the executives’ timing was exquisite.

Gamble sold 6,500 shares for $145.60, or about $946,400. As of midday Friday, following the firm’s disclosure, the shares are trading at a bit over $123, down about 13% on the day.

— Equifax already is trying to take advantage of the victims of its own breach. The firm set up a website allowing individuals to check if their information was potentially compromised, but it requires users to plug in their last name and last six digits of their Social Security numbers.

That raises the question of why anyone would trust Equifax with even a partial Social Security number at this stage.

The site also invites users to sign up for Equifax’s “TrustedID Premier” credit monitoring service. As a recompense to the victims, the firm is offering this service free for a year.

But be warned: Not only is that woefully inadequate, since hackers can exploit stolen personal data for many years, but it gives Equifax a lucrative database of possible customers to be sold continuing subscriptions for the service after the year is expired — at a price currently set at $19.95 a month. In fact, enrollment in the service typically requires customers to provide Equifax with a credit card number, which the firm uses to automatically bill them after the free trial is over.

“The fact that the breached entity (Equifax) is offering to sign consumers up for its own identity protection services strikes me as pretty rich,” security expert Brian Krebs observed on his website.

Even worse, the TrustedID terms of service state that enrollees give up their right to sue Equifax and prevents them from filing or joining a class action in the case of any dispute — they’ll have to go to arbitration as individuals, which almost always places consumers at a disadvantage.

It isn’t clear how those restrictions apply to preexisting data breaches, but judges have held in other cases that arbitration clauses may have retroactive effect. People should be very, very cautious about signing up with Equifax’s service.

The most important lesson in the Equifax breach is an old one: Consumers whose information is held by Equifax are not its customers or clients — they’re the product, and their personal information merely raw material to be exploited by the firm for its own profit.

Equifax and its two major competitors in the credit-monitoring game, Experian and TransUnion, make their money by compiling detailed files on individuals and selling them to credit card firms, banks and marketers. In short, they don’t care about you, except so far as you’re an entry in their databases.

Equifax Chief Executive Rick Smith tried hard to demonstrate that he does care, with little success. In a video on the firm’s website, he called the breach “a disappointing event for our company,” sounding a bit like Mr. Spock after he’s told that a catastrophic attack on the Enterprise is underway.

Smith further stated, “We pride ourselves on being a leader in managing and protecting data.” But the evidence contradicts that claim. Just last May, Krebs reported that thieves were able to access W-2 tax data of employees at client companies of Equifax’s payroll service subsidiary TALX, thanks to lax security. That breach lasted almost a year, starting in April 2016.

The firm has suffered a string of other breaches, too.

The credit bureaus have “shown themselves to be terrible stewards of very sensitive data, and are long overdue for more oversight from regulators and lawmakers,” Krebs wrote.

But lawmakers at the state and federal level have been inexcusably lax about regulating these data firms and any others holding sensitive consumer information.

Only eight states — Connecticut, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Vermont — impose a firm deadline on how quickly companies must inform consumers of a breach, usually 30 to 90 days after its discovery. (California requires “timely” notification, whatever that means, except for medical information, which carries a 15-day notification deadline.)

In Europe, starting next May, the deadline will be 72 hours after a breach is discovered. That seems adequate.

In the meantime, what can consumers do? Krebs and other security experts recommend going beyond signing up for account monitoring services, and placing a security freeze on your credit lines. This can be done through Equifax and the other agencies, though there may be a fee.

The freeze prevents anyone from opening a new credit or loan account in your name.

That includes you, however, which means you have to lift the freeze when you wish to open a new account yourself, and reimpose it (possibly incurring another fee) afterward. That’s an inconvenience, but a worthwhile one to protect your credit, the experts say.

The real action needs to take place in Congress. If there were harsh federal penalties for the kind of sloppiness that seems to be demonstrated by Equifax — life-threatening penalties for the companies — it would be a good bet that they’d get their act together. After every major breach, lawmakers talk about taking action, but seldom go further than holding a hearing or two.
If that happens this time, it won’t be long until the next monster breach.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

EMAN KELLAM IS TOO BLACK FOR UK YOUTUBE?? #YOUTUBEBLACK






EMAN KELLAM IS TOO BLACK FOR UK YOUTUBE??

WHERE ARE ALL THE BLACK BRITISH YOUTUBE CELEBS?

#YOUTUBEBLACK


Sources: Wikioedia, YouTube


***Eman Kellam:

Born: Emmanuel Olajide A Olaniyan
27 November 1997 (age 19)
Lewisham, London
Nationality British
Occupation TV Presenter, YouTuber, Actor
Years active 2012-Present

Emmanuel Olaniyan (born 27 November 1997) is an Nigerian British YouTube Personality, better known by his online name Eman Kellam, born (November 27, 1997) Lewisham, London, in the United Kingdom.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

NET NEUTRALITY UPHELD BY FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST CABLE COMPANIES







NET NEUTRALITY UPHELD BY FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST CABLE COMPANIES (GOOGLE FIBER):

Sources: Politico, Youtube

It's Official!

Thanks to a Federal Appeal judge's decision, Pres Obama and some members of Congress, all human beings who reside on American soil will enjoy access to a Free and Open Internet highway.

The Cable company barons have vowed to continue fighting for their legal right to restrict access.

Hello Google FIBER!



A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a White House-supported effort to make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally, delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, affirmed the FCC's latest net neutrality rules, which consumer groups and President Barack Obama have backed as essential to prevent broadband providers from blocking or degrading internet traffic. 

The telecom industry and Republicans have heavily criticized the rules as burdensome and unnecessary regulation, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruzonce labeling it “Obamacare for the Internet.”

AT&T immediately announced it would appeal the ruling, saying it's always expected the issue to be decided by the Supreme Court. 

Several industry trade groups are expected to join the effort.

The court decision marks a victory for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who led the agency’s Democratic majority in approving the rules in February 2015 over the objections of the agency's two GOP commissioners. 

The rules apply utility-style regulation originally written for telephone companies to both land-based and wireless Internet services.

Wheeler on Tuesday celebrated the ruling, calling it a “victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web.”


“It ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth,” the FCC chairman said in a statement. “After a decade of debate and legal battles, today’s ruling affirms the Commission’s ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections — both on fixed and mobile networks — that will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future.”

Big internet service providers, such as Verizon and Comcast, argued the rules will chill investment in network infrastructure. AT&T and CenturyLink, along with cable, wireless and telecom trade groups, filed the lawsuit to overturn the order.

During oral arguments in December, appeals court judges David Tatel, Sri Srinivasan and Stephen Williams had seemed receptive to the FCC’s decision to ground its net neutrality rules in telephone-style regulation. 

In the majority opinion, written by Tatel and Srinivasan, the judges said the FCC's approach was bolstered by how people view the internet today. 

"These conclusions about consumer perception find extensive support in the record and together justify the Commission’s decision," they wrote.

The majority also let stand the FCC's decision to apply net neutrality rules to the wireless internet, citing the "rapidly growing and virtually universal use of mobile broadband service.” 

That's a critical feature of the rules, since many people today access the web through smartphones.

Williams, the lone dissenter, said he agreed the FCC has the authority to change how it regulates broadband providers, but said the agency didn’t provide enough reasons doing so.

Congressional Democrats cheered the court decision as a win for consumers and free speech, with Bernie Sanders tweeting that it "will help ensure we don't turn over our democracy to the highest bidder." 

Republicans criticized the opinion, and some GOP lawmakers reiterated calls for legislation to undo the FCC's order and create rules that are less burdensome to industry.

"This is why we need to rewrite the Communications Act," Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said. "There's a better way to protect consumers from blocking and throttling without stifling innovation or delaying build-out. That way requires action by Congress."

But public interest groups involved in the net neutrality battle urged industry and Republicans to give up the fight.

"The people have spoken, the courts have spoken and this should be the last word on net neutrality," Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement.

Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai — who voted against the net neutrality order — said big cable and telecom firms should keep pursuing the case in court.

"I continue to believe that these regulations are unlawful, and I hope that the parties challenging them will continue the legal fight,” Pai said.

The telecom sector has a successful track record in thwarting the FCC’s net neutrality efforts. 

A lawsuit by Verizon scuttled the agency’s previous 2010 Open Internet order.




Friday, May 20, 2016

DONALD TRUMP vs BARACK OBAMA: A NEW POLITICAL MOVEMENT (3.0)







@realDonaldTrump


DONALD TRUMP vs BARACK OBAMA: A NEW POLITICAL MOVEMENT

TRUMP BORROWS A PAGE FROM OBAMA'S 2008 POLITICAL PLAYBOOK.


Sources: Political Insider,  MSNBC, The Hill, Rawstory, Webtrends, YouTube

In 2007 Barack Obama Jr officially launched his 2008 campaign for the Oval Office.

During his time on the campaign trail Pres Obama made new political inroads via his unmatched use of Social Media, Google and the Mainstream Media.

Needless to say due to such wise strategy, Obama ushered in a New Political Movement and emerged victoriously in Nov 2008 against his GOP challenger US Senator John McCain.

In fact many registered GOP voters cast their ballots for Obama in 2008.

Fast forward eight years later.

2016 Presumptive GOP US Presidential nominee Donald J Trump appears to have borrowed a page from Pres Obama's 2008 political playbook as it relates to Trump's command of Television Media and Social Media.

Trump has also persuaded large numbers of Democrat voters to switch parties and vote him during the GOP primaries.

So where is Trump's 2016 Democrat presidential challenger Hillary Clinton?

Trump appears to have left Hillary in the dust just as Obama did to her in 2008.

Ladies and Gentlemen!

This is not your Great-grandparents US Presidential election.

Grab a bowl of popcorn and a beverage of choice because this race is going to be ELECTRIC and On FIRE!

Stay Tuned

I predict that Trump is slated to WIN.



Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is shining a massive spotlight on President Barack Obama’s amnesty agenda.

Trump knows that the border is so unprotected that dangerous criminals and terrorists can cross into America with ease.

That’s why the U.S. House of Representatives just issued a major defeat to Obama! Known as the “Donald Trump Act,” House Resolution 3099 takes direct aim at cities which don’t enforce federal laws about sanctuary cities.
The House passed it by an overwhelming 241-197 vote. This is a big deal!
Sanctuary cities have come under heavy scrutiny in the wake of Kathryn Steinle’s death on July 1 in San Francisco. Authorities charged Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez with her killing. Lopez-Sanchez, who is in the U.S. illegally, has a history of felony convictions and has been deported five times.
Critics of the sanctuary laws say such policies encourage people to immigrate to the U.S. illegally at the expense of citizens.
“A refuge for whom? A sanctuary for whom?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “A sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Or a refuge for a convicted felon with a 25-year-long criminal history?”
Democrats accused House Republicans of bringing up the bill in part because of real estate mogul and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s focus on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities; they dubbed the bill the “Donald Trump Act.”
“Just a few weeks into his campaign and Donald Trump has a bill on the floor of the House. That is better than some of the senators he’s running against.” Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said mockingly.
via The Hill
Democrats can mock this legislation all they want. It’s clear that Republicans are getting serious about exposing the shameful problems caused by millions of illegal aliens flooding into this country.









Wednesday, December 16, 2015

GOOGLE CROWNS CHARLOTTE AN GOOGLE FIBER E-CITY


GOOGLE CROWNS CHARLOTTE AN GOOGLE FIBER E-CITY:
GOOGLE FIBER STOPS CABLE COMPANIES FROM OVERCHARGING FOR WI-FI.
GOOGLE FIBER ALSO HELPS MANY SMALL BUSINESSES SAVE MONEY.


Highlights:
Internet giant Google names Charlotte a top eCity
Award recognizes the online strength of local small businesses
50 cities were recognized

Charlotte’s small businesses are among the best in the nation when it comes to using the Web to find new customers, connect with clients and power the city’s economy.
So says Internet search giant Google, which has included the Queen City as one of 50 winners of its eCities Award.

Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts and U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-Huntersville, announced the city’s designation at an event Monday afternoon at Amelie’s French Bakery on North Davidson Street.

“It’s not surprising our entrepreneurs have so enthusiastically embraced the latest tools of technology,” Roberts said.
“The eCities award focuses on small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. And I’ve been so impressed with all of our city’s small businesses, and the community that they’re building.”
Tillis, a former member of the Cornelius Board of Commissioners, noted that the town of Cornelius won the award last year.
“I want North Carolina to be the most wired state in the nation,” Tillis said. “It just adds another win to have Charlotte join other cities as an eCity.”

Amelie’s co-owner Bill Lamb noted how the bakery uses digital tools to promote word about it worldwide, including a Periscope project broadcasting kitchen production.

Google launched the eCities award in 2013. North Carolina’s previous winners are Cary and Cornelius.

This summer, the Mountain View, Calif.-based company started construction in Charlotte for Google Fiber, its high-speed Internet and television service. Google plans to lay approximately 3,200 miles of cable in the city.

Members of the Charlotte Google Fiber team were at the Amelie’s announcement, and Lilyn Hester, Southeast public affairs spokeswoman for Google, said “a lot of our Googlers come here for coffee and for meetings.”

To conduct the study, Google teamed with research firm IPSOS. Hester said they evaluated towns and cities across the U.S. – as well as 13,000 small businesses – for their use of social media. 

The team also looked at how businesses used websites and blogs, and how they sold goods online.

In its description of Charlotte on the award website, Google calls the city “...future focused. The Charlotte Research Institute helps the University of North Carolina collaborate with industry experts, host science festivals and create incubator-like workspaces for tech entrepreneurs.”

The Charlotte Research Institute campus, located off U.S. 29, includes the nonprofit business incubator Ventureprise, and the Energy Production and Infrastructure Center, known as EPIC, to train future engineers for the energy sector.

In a statement, Robert Wilhelm, vice chancellor for research and economic development and executive director of the Charlotte Research Institute, said it was created “to drive innovation and economic growth in the Charlotte region.

The Google eCity Award recognizes the many collaborators that advance digital business in our community. UNC Charlotte will continue to be a strong partner to create, grow, and attract businesses.”

Credits:  Fox news, Charlotte Observer, YouTube

Sunday, November 29, 2015

COMCAST & TIME WARNER FORCE BLACK CUSTOMERS INTO HIGH-PRICED SERVICE BUNDLES




COMCAST & TIME WARNER Cable companies are the two largest television Cable conglomerates in the USA.

COMCAST services the state of GEORGIA.

TIME WARNER services the state of NORTH CAROLINA.

Both companies appear to demonstrate RACIST Business practices (especially COMCAST) of forcing BLACK Customers to pay higher rates than WHITE customers for Service bundles.

This includes charging higher rates for WIFI.

COMCAST even charges different rates to BLACK consumers based on GEORGIA Zip codes.

Both COMCAST & TIMEWARNER are currently being sued for $20 Billion by the National Association of African-American Owned Media for RACIST practices.

I encourage BLACK consumers to contact their members of CONGRESS about these RACIST Business Practices.

I also encourage BLACK consumers to seek other Cable & WIFI Options such as GOOGLE FIBER, Hulu and Netflix.


Sources: Reuters, YouTube

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

ENTWINE COUTURE & JANE CARTER SOLUTION NATURAL HAIR PRODUCTS (ONLINE BUSINESS CONSUMER ALERT)








‪‬CONSUMER ALERT: BEWARE OF BUYING NATURAL HAIR CARE PRODUCTS ONLINE

**ENTWINE COUTURE and JANE CARTER SOLUTIONS**

BOTH ARE BLACK-OWNED BUSINESSES.

OFTEN TIMES SMALL NATURAL HAIR PRODUCT COMPANIES ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO PROCESS & SHIP LARGE ORDERS, BUT THEY PROCESS YOUR PAYMENT UP FRONT.


#‎EntwineCouture

~ Don't purchase ENTWINE COUTURE Hair Care Products from the Company's website.

They process your Payment immediately, then e-mail you a FAKE Tracking number.

The Company is based in CHICAGO.

Horrible Customer Service!

If you do receive your products, it may take weeks.

If you want to purchase ENTWINE COUTURE products, I strongly suggest you buy them in person from a Salon or another reputable retailer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#JaneCarterSolutions

~ Don't purchase JANE CARTER SOLUTIONS Hair Care Products from the Company's website.

They process your Payment immediately, however your Order won't be processed immediately.

If you want to purchase JANE CARTER products, I strongly suggest you buy them in person from a Salon or another reputable retailer.


Monday, December 16, 2013

NSA PHONE SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS RULED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A FEDERAL JUDGE




NSA PHONE SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL & MAKES THE INTERNET LESS SAFE.

FEDERAL GOV'T CAN'T USE 1979 SCOTUS CASE TO SPY ON AMERICAN CITIZENS NOR TO CREATE "BIG BROTHER" TYPE SOCIETY.


"Updated: Federal Judge Finds NSA Spying Unconstitutional"

Government can't use 1979 law to justify its "Almost-Orwellian" Technology.

In a stunning decision, a DC-based federal judge has ruled that the National Security Agency spying revealed this summer violates the constitution.

The opinion (PDF) published today by US District Judge Richard Leon is in response to a lawsuit filed by Larry Klayman, a longtime conservative activist.

Klayman was fast on the draw, filing his lawsuit on June 6, one day after widespread NSA surveillance was revealed in June.

Leon's order grants an injunction that will shut down the NSA's Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, and it requires the government to destroy the metadata collected on the plaintiffs' accounts. The shutdown will only happen if an appeals court agrees with Leon, who has stayed the injunction pending appeal, "in light of the significant national security issues at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues."

A problematic precedent

Today's 71-page order works around a problematic precedent for privacy reformers, Smith v. Maryland. That's the 1979 Supreme Court decision that found there's "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in the actual phone numbers dialed from a telephone, because they are "business records." That's what allows "pen registers" to be installed by police without judicial review, since it's not a "search" in the eyes of courts.

"The question before me is not the same question that the Supreme Court confronted in Smith," wrote Leon. Using a pen register "is a far cry from the issue in this case." We've reached a turning point in the history of technology, in Leon's reading. The government's decades-old reasoning can't hold up in the present day.

He writes:

Indeed, the question in this case can more properly be styled as follows: when do present-day circumstances—the evolutions in the Government's surveillance capabilities, citizens' phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court 34 years ago that a precedent like Smith simply does not apply?

The answer, unfortunately for the government, is now.

The court of 1979 could not "have ever imagined how the citizens of 2013 would interact with their phones," writes Leon, leaving the Smith precedent with little value.

The pen register the court considered was operational for less than two weeks, in March 1976, and there was "no indication from the Court's opinion that it expected the Government to retain those limited phone records once the case was over." The "almost-Orwellian technology" used by the government to capture phone data "is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979."

The NSA is using two weeks of data collected from a single phone to justify "the creation and maintenance of a historical database containing five years' worth of data," writes Leon. "And I might add, there is the very real prospect that the program will go on for as long as America is combatting terrorism, which realistically could be forever!"

Fundamentally, Leon is making the case that the law must be reconsidered in the age of the smartphone. He cites data from CTIA counting more than 326 million mobile subscribers in 2012, including 22 million computers, tablets, and modems.

"Count the phones at the bus stop, in a restaurant, or around the table at a work meeting or any given occasion," writes Leon. "Thirty-four years ago, none of those phones would have been there. Thirty-four years ago, city streets were lined with pay phones. Thirty-four years ago, when people wanted to send 'text messages,' they wrote letters and attached postage stamps."
A new North Star

The Smith case and NSA surveillance are wildly different, so a different analysis must take place. "I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones," writes Leon.

No judge outside the secret Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court has "has ever recognized a special need sufficient to justify continuous, daily searches of virtually every American citizen without any particularized suspicion," writes Leon. "In effect, the Government urges me to be the first non-FISC judge to sanction such a dragnet."

And Leon won't do it. The Verizon subscribers who filed the suit do have an expectation of privacy, and the government has intruded on it, he concludes.

In Leon's reading of the record, the government isn't merely trying to investigate possible terrorists. It's trying to do so as fast as it possibly can. "The affidavits in support of the Government's brief repeatedly emphasize this interest in speed," he notes. But the Government can't cite a single instance where the bulk metadata program "actually stopped an imminent attack."

He notes that the government could have shown more evidence to the judge privately, in chambers, but didn't. "Although the Government has publicly asserted that the NSA's surveillance programs have prevented 54 terrorist attacks, no proof of that has ever been put before me," Leon writes.

That leads him to have "serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program." While there's a "limited record" at this point in the litigation, the plaintiffs have a "substantial likelihood" of showing their privacy interests outweigh the government's interest in collecting the bulk data.

They are likely to show the bulk data program is an unreasonable search, and violates the Fourth Amendment, Leon finds. The public interest "weighs heavily in favor of granting an injunction" that will bar the government from collecting any metadata in association with their personal Verizon accounts.

Government lawyers also said that removing just the plaintiffs, two Verizon subscribers, from its database will be burdensome. That's not a "burden" Leon takes seriously. "Of course, the public has no interest in saving the government from the burdens of complying with the Constitution!"

A controversial plaintiff

In the coming months, Leon's opinion will be considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. That court considers an array of federal agency issues, and until recently it had leaned strongly Republican as the Senate held up confirmation of the candidates put forth by the Obama Administration.

However, the opposition to judicial nominees has eased somewhat following Obama's re-election, and three of the four vacancies have been filled in 2013.

The case against the NSA is not Klayman's first controversial lawsuit. Many of his cases have not ended well. Klayman has been rebuked and sanctioned by several judges, and he has been barred from some courtrooms.

In 2012, Klayman filed a lawsuit in Florida to kick President Barack Obama off the primary ballot in that state, based on the discredited theory that he was not born in the United States. In 2011, he sued Facebook for "negligence" because it didn't remove an anti-Israel page quickly enough. Neither suit was successful.

The Klayman suit is not the only challenge to NSA telephone-data program.

The more widely known case is the one filed in July by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union.

That case, filed on behalf of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, was consolidated with a pre-Snowden anti-NSA lawsuit called Jewel v. NSA.

The government has filed a motion to dismiss, and the case awaits a judge's decision. A DC-based privacy group, EPIC, tried to take the issue straight to the Supreme Court, but that failed.

Dissatisfaction with NSA surveillance has hit Congress, as well.

The USA Freedom Act, which would end NSA spying, has 130 co-sponsors.

NSA leaker Edward Snowden's statement on today's decision has been published in The New York Times. Snowden said:

I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.'s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts.

Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.


Sources: ARS Technica, CNN, NBC News

Monday, May 21, 2012

Dharun Ravi Sentenced To 30-Days Because He Did NOT Commit Hate Crime; Cyber Bullying Yes! Hate Crime? NO!







video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player





video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player



Dharun Ravi sentenced to 30 days in jail for Rutgers Tyler Clementi spycam case


A judge sentenced former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi today to 30 days in jail for using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man.

Ravi, 20, was also placed on three years' probation

"Our society has every right to expect zero tolerance for intolerance," Judge Glenn Berman said in imposing far less than the maximum, 10 years behind bars.

In addition, Ravi was ordered to get counseling and pay $10,000 toward a program to help victims of hate crimes.

Berman told Ravi to report to the Middlesex County Adult Correctional facility on May 31.

In handing down Monday's sentence, the judge told Ravi that while someone might argue the first spying attempt was a foolish prank, "You cannot make or milk that argument a second time."

The judge also scolded Ravi for deleting scores of text messages and tweets and trying to influence a witness. At the same time, Berman said Ravi has spent the past 20 months in "exile" since his arrest. And the judge also pointed out that Ravi was not charged in Clementi's death.

Ravi did not speak at his sentencing. But his mother, Sabitha Ravi, tearfully told the judge her son "doesn't have any hatred in his heart towards anybody."

Clementi's father, Joe Clementi, told the judge that Ravi deserved to be punished, saying the young man saw his son as undeserving of basic human decency. The elder Clementi said Ravi "still does not get it" and has no remorse.

Ravi was convicted in March of 15 criminal counts, including bias intimidation and invasion of privacy, for using his webcam to view his 18- year-old roommate Tyler Clementi kissing another man in September 2010. Clementi committed suicide just days after the online peeping and quickly became a symbol of the plight of gay youth in America.

Supporters saw Ravi as a symbol too, of the justice system gone awry in search of someone to blame. Several hundred protesters showed up at the New Jersey State House last Monday to rally in support of Ravi and to call attention to what they see as injustices in New Jersey's hate-crime laws.

Ravi could face deportation to India, where he was born and remains as a citizen, although the judge said he added a notation to his judgement recommending that Ravi not be deported.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, ABC News, Youtube, Google Maps

Friday, March 23, 2012

Dharun Ravi/ Tyler Clementi Case Wrongfully Labeled A Hate Crime: Ravi Didn't Cause Tyler's Suicide
















video platform
video management
video solutions
video player



Rutgers’ Ravi: ‘I Wasn’t the One Who Caused Him to Jump’

Former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi, convicted last week of a hate crime for spying on his gay roommate’s date, regrets his “dumb kid” actions, but told ABC News today that he takes “comfort” in the belief that his webcam peeking is not the reason Tyler Clementi jumped to his death.

Ravi, 20, of Plainsboro, N.J., spoke about the case just days after a New Jersey jury convicted him of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, witness tampering and hindering arrest for using a webcam to peek at Clementi’s date in their college dorm room on Sept. 19, 2010 and encouraging others to spy during a second date, on Sept. 21, 2010.

Ravi was not charged in connection with Clementi’s death.

“Even though I wasn’t the one who caused him to jump off the bridge, I did do things wrong and I was stupid about a lot of stuff,” Ravi said in an exclusive broadcast interview with “20/20″ co-anchor Chris Cuomo.

Ravi, who was 18 at the time, was initially rattled by Clementi’s death, which the press depicted as the result of cyber bullying.

He asked himself, “Is this because of me?” Ravi told Cuomo.

But Ravi said that what he learned about his freshman roommate during the course of legal proceedings — including information that hasn’t been made public — convinced him that the 18-year-old took his life for reasons that didn’t have anything to do with Ravi and his webcam.

“The more and more I found out, it would be kind of obnoxious of me to think that I could have this profound effect on him,” Ravi said.

At another point he added, “After all this time and reading his conversations and how and what he was doing before, I really don’t think he cared at all.

I feel like I was an insignificant part to his life. That’s giving me comfort now.”

Ravi also pointed out that Clementi left behind a note, and that its contents have never been made public.

“The fact that we weren’t allowed to read it, that they said it didn’t have anything to do with this, that gave me comfort also because I figured if it has nothing to do with me…it must have been something else that was going on,” he said.

“He didn’t even care about this… He had bigger problems in his life,” he said.

Ravi, alerted by his dorm resident adviser that Clementi was aware of his spying and wanted a room change, sent Clementi a text and an email apologizing. That text was sent about the same time that Clementi jumped off the bridge.

“What is frustrating was I never knew if he got my text or the e-mail that I sent.

It was very frustrating to think I didn’t get a chance to say anything to him. To this day, I just say you know what, I’ll just think he read it and he got it and I’m going to accept that as that’s what happened. …At least he had to hear what I had to say.”
Ravi is scheduled to be sentenced May 21 and could face five to 10 years in prison.

As an Indian citizen who is in the U.S. on a green card, Ravi could also face deportation.

Despite the hate crime conviction, Ravi maintains his innocence. He said he never hated Clementi and is not homophobic. That’s why, he said, he turned down prosecutors when they offered a plea deal that included no jail time in exchange for admitting to charges of intimidation against Clementi.

“I had to go up there in front of a judge under oath and say I intimidated Tyler because of sexual orientation — (to say that) I did this because I had this hate for gay people,” he said. “I don’t hate gay people.”

It is believed Clementi learned about his roommate’s spying over Ravi’s Twitter account, on which Ravi posted messages about the incidents.

The first time, Ravi said, he and a friend watched Clementi and his date kissing for just few seconds from another dorm room before quickly shutting it down.

The second time, Ravi said, he planned to let a friend watch the webcam feed, and through a Twitter post he also let other friends know about his plans. But he later decided against it and turned the camera away from Clementi’s bed, he told Cuomo.

During Ravi’s trial, the prosecutor rejected Ravi’s claim to have turned off his computer and turning the webcam away, arguing that it was Clementi who shut it off.

Ravi told Cuomo that his actions were never intended to hurt or shame Clementi and that the Twitter posts were just a way to keep in touch with his own friends and let them know what was going on in his life.

“Looking back, I was very self-absorbed with the whole thing. It was never, ‘What if Tyler finds out, how’s he going to feel about it?’” he said. “…I was 18, I was stupid, I wouldn’t think about my actions beyond a minute into a future. I was a dumb kid not thinking about it.”

Despite media depictions of Clementi and his suicide, Ravi said he believes the teen wasn’t fragile.

“Just because he’s gay doesn’t mean he’s automatically fragile and can’t deal with anything,” he said.

While Ravi believes he should face some punishment, that punishment shouldn’t include jail, he said.

“So much worse happens,” he said. “Kids actually get bullied and actually go through stuff much worse than this. I understand why people feel the need to punish me.

Bad stuff happens and they need to set an example, but it’s unfortunate this has to be the case where this happens.”

Ravi said he feels he’s been taken advantage of.

“The people that are fighting for gay rights, they have a just cause. I think this kind of detracts from their cause,” he said. “This is something people can point to and say, ‘You guys are going overboard.’ I think it’s bad for them.”



View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, Google Maps

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Twitter Turns 6 Today! Happy Birthday! Social Media Success!













Happy 6th Birthday, Twitter!


"Just setting up my twttr," Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey sent from a service that no one had heard of exactly six years ago. It was the first tweet, or 140-character message, to ever be sent on Twitter.

Twitter hasn't changed all that much since Dorsey fired off that tweet at 3:50PM on March 21, 2006. However, while the format is the same -- 140 characters to make a statement, hashtags used to sort by topic, and an @ symbol attached to a username – the service has changed the way millions of people consume information, share and communicate.

"It's really been about how people have changed around the platform and they've gotten very used to conversing in these short text bursts," says Mashable editor-in-chief Lance Ulanoff, who uses Twitter daily. He says people are turning to Twitter first as a way to get their news out.

"It's become incredibly important in people's lives to share information first with their audience, with their friends, you know, people they've never met before, but it's just become a truly powerful platform."

Powerful, indeed. Once criticized as a place where people go to share what they ate for breakfast, the micro-blogging site is now the first place many people go to get their news.

Tech evangelist Robert Scoble tells ABC News Twitter has become part of our media diet. "I don't see it going away, I see it becoming more and more important."

Think about that famous picture of Captain Chesley Sullenberger's US Airways plane landing on the Hudson River. It appeared first on Twitter.

And what about the Arab Spring? A 2011 study from the University of Washington says Twitter and other social media sites played a central role leading up to the toppling of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators. Turns out Twitter is a great way to organize a revolution.

And the death of Osama bin Laden? If you were on Twitter, you knew about it before President Obama gave his televised address to the nation.

And then-candidate Barack Obama certainly wasn't the first politician to use social media on the campaign trail, but he was the first to realize and harness the money-raising powers of Twitter and other social networks. His followers were kept updated on his progress and when he won the presidency, he tweeted: "We just made history. All of this happened because you gave your time, talent and passion. All of this happened because of you. Thanks."

Since then, politicians have taken to Twitter to reach their constituents and get their message out.

"Politicians understand that if people feel like these tweets are coming directly from them, they may be able to understand the politician a little bit better and they certainly feel like they have a more direct connection, or a more personal connection to these people," says Ulanoff.

About a year ago, Twitter was valued at about $10 billion, while it struggled to explain its business model to people. Now it's firmly planted in the world of advertising and is using promoted tweets as a way to make money, bring in $139 million last year in ad revenue.

Scoble says there's "a number of different ways to make money but the top one is going to be advertising."

Twitter has used cash from a round of private investment funding last year (there's talk of a public share offer at some point) to invest in services and talent. Most recently it bought Posterous, a micro-blogging service, similar to Tumblr.

The company hasn't revealed what it intends to do with the service, but Gartner research director Michael Gartenberg says, "It appears Twitter is looking to evolve from the status update service it started as to an information service optimized for sharing and consuming information and content."

Based on that, maybe in its sixth year Twitter might see its biggest changes.



View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, Twitter, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Sunday, March 18, 2012

"The Road We've Traveled" Pres. Obama's 17-Minute Campaign Documentary







Sources: Barack Obama.com, Youtube

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Dharun Ravi's Guilty Verdict vs REAL Hate Crimes (Gay Rights vs Civil Rights)











Dharun Ravi's Trial Proves that HATE CRIMES in America involving Blatant Racism against BLACK People are completely Ignored.

While HATE CRIMES against GAY People & ABORTION Providers are Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.

Welcome to 21st Century America!





Guilty verdict in Rutgers webcam spying case


A former Rutgers University student accused of spying on and intimidating his gay roommate by use of a hidden webcam was found guilty Friday of all counts -- including invasion of privacy and the more severe charges of bias intimidation -- in a case that thrust cyberbullying into the national spotlight.

Dharun Ravi, 20, was also found guilty of witness tampering, hindering apprehension and tampering with physical evidence, and could now face up to 10 years in jail and deportation to his native India.

Sentencing has been set for May 21.

The New Jersey jury was confronted with a series of questions on each charge after it asked for clarification on what constituted bias intimidation.

Though it found Ravi not guilty on several questions within the verdict sheet, because he was found guilty on at least one question on each main count, Ravi was convicted on all charges and could now face the maximum penalty.

His roommate, Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman, killed himself in September 2010 by jumping off the George Washington Bridge and into the Hudson River after learning that Ravi had secretly spied on his sexual encounter with another man.

CNN legal analyst Paul Callan called Friday's verdict "unprecedented," adding that it "sends a message to people across the rest of the country" about the potential consequences of unauthorized webcam use in an age of expanding social media.

"New Jersey enacted a law that said if you secretly record (someone engaged in an intimate act) with a webcam or any other kind of video and you broadcast that without their permission, that is a crime," Callan said. "Every place else in America up until this law was enacted, you could sue somebody for civil damages for the embarrassment, but you weren't going to go to jail.

New Jersey said it's criminal."

And because prosecutors were able to prove that Ravi's actions were born of a gay bias, the possible sentence doubles from up to five years to 10 years behind bars.

Clementi's death stirred discussion about bullying, with President Barack Obama releasing a videotaped message condemning it. A few months later, New Jersey legislators enacted stricter laws to protect against bullying in schools.

"This haunting and awful case shows how much society has changed," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin of Friday's verdict. "Even though he was not charged directly in connection with Clementi's suicide, that tragedy hung over the trial and undoubtedly played a major part in every aspect of the case."

After the verdict, Rutgers University released a statement saying, "This sad incident should make us all pause to recognize the importance of civility and mutual respect in the way we live, work and communicate with others."

Prosecutors had argued that Ravi, who sat expressionless in the courtroom Friday, had tried to embarrass Clementi because he was gay and that his actions were motivated by a desire to intimidate the Ridgewood, New Jersey, native expressly because of his sexual orientation.

"These acts were purposeful, they were intentional, and they were planned," prosecutor Julia L. McClure told the jury on the first day of the trial. Ravi "was bothered by Tyler Clementi's sexual orientation," she later said more bluntly.

Ravi's attorneys countered by saying their client acted thoughtlessly, portraying him as an immature college student who made a mistake, and that his actions were not based on homophobia.

"He hasn't lived long enough to have any experience with homosexuality or gays," attorney Steven Altman said in closing arguments earlier this week. "He doesn't know anything about it. He just graduated high school."

After the verdict Friday, Altman said he would "prepare some type of press release" next week, but vowed to appeal the ruling.

"Right now I am just dealing with the emotions that everyone involved with the Ravi family and the defense experienced and continue to experience with the verdict," he said.

Though Ravi and Molly Wei -- a fellow student who admitted to joining Ravi to watch the surreptitious encounter that others were alerted to via social media -- were charged in the wake of Clementi's suicide, they were not charged directly with his death.

Facing two counts of invasion of privacy, Wei reached a plea deal in May that required her to testify against her friend and former high school classmate as well as to complete a three-year program on cyberbullying and do 300 hours of community service.

Ravi turned down a plea deal offered by Middlesex County prosecutors that would have allowed him to avoid jail time in exchange for undergoing counseling, doing 600 hours of community service and disposing of any information that could identify the man who appeared in the Web video with Clementi.

Prosecutors also offered to help him avoid deportation, though they said they could not guarantee it.

Ravi, who had been studying on a visa at the New Jersey university, did not testify on his own behalf.

During the prosecution's phase of the trial, the man whom Clementi was intimate with, identified only as "M.B.," told jurors that he had noticed a Web camera aimed directly at Clementi's bed.

The 32-year-old man testified that he met Clementi on a social-networking site for gay men and that they eventually met three times in the student's dorm room. The two conversed online, exchanged text messages and eventually had sex, he said.

Wei testified that she watched M.B. and Clementi after Ravi had secretly set up the webcam in his and Clementi's dormitory room.

Ravi's attorney, Altman, has argued his client had initially switched on the webcam to monitor his personal items because he did not trust his roommate's visitor.

In Twitter messages from that day, Ravi wrote that he'd gone into a friend's room, "turned on my webcam" and saw his roommate "making out with a dude."

Then on September 22, 2010, Clementi took a train to New York and posted a mobile status update on his Facebook page that read, "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."
Ravi had apparently tried to make amends with his estranged roommate that same night, according to text messages revealed in court.

"I've known you were gay and I have no problem with it," Ravi wrote in messages after he apparently learned his roommate had requested a room change.

It is not clear whether Clementi ever viewed the messages before committing suicide.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, NJ.com, Google Maps