4 PIECES OF THE ORLANDO SHOOTING NARRATIVE THAT DON’T ADD UP BY ISAAC DAVIS The truth does indeed matter in…
Monday, 27 June 2016
In Universal Deceit The Truth Don’t Matter- Orlando Shooting
In Universal Deceit The Truth Don’t Matter- Orlando Shooting
World going to hell? Here are the Solar System’s five most livable places
World going to hell? Here are the Solar System’s five most livable places
This artist’s impression shows how Mars may have looked about four billion years ago, when it would have been more conducive to life. (credit: ESO)
In the year 2016 one might be forgiven for thinking the world is going to hell. Across much of Europe and the United States a distressed and angry working class has begun wielding nationalism as a blunt weapon against the disconnected ruling class. Islamic radicals have stepped up attacks against the West as well as moderate practitioners of their own faith. Then there is humanity’s untrammeled use of fossil fuels, worsening water shortages, and other environmental degradations of the planet—not to mention the proliferating threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Finally, we also haven’t yet gotten around to tracking every asteroid that might wipe out humankind.
In short, Earth might need a backup plan.
Elon Musk certainly thinks so, having staked much of his fortune on SpaceX and its relentlessly pursued goal of colonizing Mars. But Mars is not the only place humans could go. There are other worlds in the Solar System where humans could walk without space suits, find ample energy, or even swim in subsurface oceans. None of these places are remotely as habitable as Earth, even at our planet’s cold poles. But they also don’t have Earth’s political baggage, either. So here’s our guide to the five-best options for DIY colonists:
Friday, 24 June 2016
Why Should The IRS Have AR-15S And We Cant ?
Why Should The IRS Have AR-15S And We Cant ?
IF THE PUBLIC SHOULDN’T HAVE THEM, WHY DOES THE IRS NEED AR-15S? SOURCE: MICHAEL KRIEGER Here we go again. Stuck in…
Thursday, 23 June 2016
What These Doctors Were Doing Is Just Shocking
What These Doctors Were Doing Is Just Shocking
HUNDREDS OF DOCTORS AND NURSES ACROSS U.S. CHARGED IN $900-MILLION MEDICARE FRAUD SWEEP SOURCE: ALL GOV. More than 300 people…
Robots To Pay Social Security ? WTF
Robots To Pay Social Security ? WTF
ROBOTS TO PAY “SOCIAL SECURITY” UNDER EU TAX PROPOSAL SOURCE: MICHAEL SHEDLOCK Although the proposal is deemed “too early” to…
Its GOOD to SHARE:
FBI Internet Warentless Access Rejected By Senate
FBI Internet Warentless Access Rejected By Senate
SENATE REJECTS FBI BID FOR WARRANTLESS ACCESS TO INTERNET BROWSING HISTORIES SOURCE: ZD NET An amendment designed to allow the…
Its GOOD to SHARE:
Minnesota Nurses Say NO To Robot Staffing
Minnesota Nurses Say NO To Robot Staffing
NURSES SAY “NO” TO STAFFING BY ROBOT: 5,000 STRIKE IN MINNESOTA SOURCE: TRUTH-OUT Members of the Minnesota Nurses Union…
Barack Obama Has 'Discussed' Owning NBA Team After Leaving White House
Barack Obama Has 'Discussed' Owning NBA Team After Leaving White House
Barack Obama Has 'Discussed' Owning NBA Team After Leaving White House
Associated Press President Barack Obama won’t be in the White House much longer, which means he’ll soon have time to ponder other career pursuits. And according to White House…
Its GOOD to SHARE
Instagram will soon start translating comments
Instagram will soon start translating comments
Source: Technologyscience Instagram will soon start translating comments, captions posted alongside its pictures, and user bios. The image-sharing social network announced that…
Its GOOD to SHARE:
Wednesday, 22 June 2016
Rule 41 - Governments will break into your computers, take data, and engage in remote surveillance.
“The U.S. government wants to use an obscure procedure—amending a federal rule known as Rule 41— to radically expand their authority to hack,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation says. “The changes to Rule 41 would make it easier for them to break into our computers, take data, and engage in remote surveillance.”
As we showed you when this first came to light, this rule change will make it easier for law enforcement to get warrants to hack into computers and engage in remote surveillance (i.e. taking over a device and using it to surveil any target).
The Department of Justice says there is nothing to see here, and you crazy privacy-loving citizens should get over yourselves and move along, plus, this only applies to a very few cases… like stopping child exploitation.
Commendable if true … but the new rules also effectively wipe out the requirement to give a copy of the warrant to the person whose computers are being hacked. So this rule change will result in judges granting a single search warrant that can be used to remotely search thousands of computers, and for the first time ever judges will be letting law enforcement hack into the devices of botnet victims.
The EFF adds: “If this rule change is not stopped, anyone who is using any technological means to safeguard their location privacy could find themselves suddenly in the jurisdiction of a prosecutor-friendly or technically-naïve judge, anywhere in the country.“
The FBI has long abused its surveillance powers, and endeavored to avoid strict oversight.
Also, as techdirt.com writes: “… we should always be skeptical when law enforcement starts throwing out ‘sexually exploited children!’ and ‘terrorism!’ as reasons to upend existing rules. Especially when they cover something as important as how broadly the FBI and DOJ can hack into people’s computers.”
Unscrupulous law enforcement entities will inevitably use this new rule to pressure judges, find friendly courts, and eventually increase their exploitation of security vulnerabilities in common software products. They might even force vulnerabilities that could affect millions to be left open instead of patched.
It’s all getting pushed through an obscure procedural process, not legislation. A judicial panel approved the DOJ’s proposed changes, and the Supreme Court gave its blessing a month later. So if Congress does nothing it will automatically go into effect on December 1st.
Orlando Police told not to pursue shooter for 20 minutes
Orlando Police told not to pursue shooter for 20 minutes
ORLANDO Source : MSN — After an initial burst of fire between Omar Mateen and a security guard…
Is the CIA getting ready to dump the Clintons?
How many times are the dynamic duo allowed to wander off the reservation?
Mainstream press outlets are mounting a new brand of coverage on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They’re questioning her ability to win the nomination and/or the general election. All of a sudden, the done deal is not done.
What’s behind this switch?
Aside from fear of The Donald, there is the boiling Hillary email scandal. There is also the specter of further revelations about the syndicate known as the Clinton Foundation. That’s a big one. A very big one.
As I’ve previously reported, the sale of 20 percent of the uranium in the U.S. to Putin — that’s right — involved donors to the Foundation — unreported donors — as well as the participation of Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. Detailed by the NY Times, the scandal has lain there for several months like a poisoned meal, with the press afraid to touch it further.
Now, enter a financial analyst named Charles Ortel. Ortel made a name for himself by publishing his analysis of serious problems in General Electric’s financial reports (2008). On his website, he has begun taking apart the entire Clinton Foundation, brick by brick. Here is an explosive excerpt from his overview:
“In financial terms, the size of criminal activities directly involving the Clinton Foundation exceeds $2 billion—counting affiliated and indirect criminal activities, the size exceeds $50 billion. The geographic scope of these unprosecuted criminal activities touches all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and more than 100 foreign countries where Clinton Foundation entities operate or solicit donations.”“Beginning late in 2008, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and others expanded efforts to cover up illegal operating and fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation since inception. Working ultimately with individuals inside the I.R.S. and elsewhere, these persons led efforts to ‘restructure’ the Clinton Foundation to make it appear that it had been legally constituted and validly operated in compliance with applicable laws, when this was certainly not the case.”“Trustees and other persons have been engaged in an unprosecuted criminal conspiracy to operate the Clinton Foundation in the guise of a public charity, when it is, instead, an illegal money-laundering and influence peddling scheme.”“In fact, the Clinton Foundation has engaged in widespread unauthorized activities, including illegal operations internationally and in the U.S., and illegal fundraising across state and national boundaries, using telephones, mail, and the internet.”“Moreover, the Clinton Foundation has never validly been authorized by the I.R.S. to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than serving as an archival records repository and research facility in Little Rock, Arkansas.”“Instead of concentrating upon its specifically-authorized tax-exempt purposes, trustees performed lax oversight and installed ineffective controls, creating conditions where Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and others deliberately and illegally diverted substantial sums from the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.”
In light of Ortel’s analysis, to say the Clintons have wandered off the reservation would be a vast understatement.
So… how have they remained free of this tsunami of a scandal? Who has been protecting them?
Let us return to the period when Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas—and a 1995 book titled “Compromised,” by Terry Reed (former CIA asset) and John Cummings (former Newsday reporter).
Buckle up.
According to the authors, Bill Clinton was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.
It seems Bill had agreed to set up secret CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.
This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued — but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill he was still “their man” for the upcoming 1992 run for the presidency.
Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, “Goombata,” about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed U.S. operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on “Compromised” without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.
Here, from “Compromised,” is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. According to the authors, so was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.
Johnson said to Bill Clinton:
“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together…I’m not here to threaten you [Bill]. But there have been mistakes. Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek [the U.S. Presidency]. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset… Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this [CIA weapons-manufacturing] and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”
By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first presidential campaign.
He was their boy, and they protected him, despite the fact that he had wandered off the reservation.
But now, it’s happening again. It appears Bill and his wife have taken their massive Foundation to new heights of careless, reckless, devil-may-care criminality.
Well, the Clintons are that way, aren’t they? They don’t just push the boundaries of what is legal and moral, they drive a huge tank through the boundaries and shout “WHO CARES” as they hurtle off to commit new and slimier deeds.
The question is, will the CIA still give this duo cover? Or will Agency insiders throw in the towel and leave them out in the cold?
Has that decision to abandon them already been made? Is that why the CIA Mockingbird press is starting to turn on Hillary?
Have she and Bill gone too far?
Is John Kerry lurching into his polished loafers and getting ready to step into the breach as the Democratic nominee for President?
— Jon Rappoport
Why Are We Giving Israel $40 Billion In Aid ?
Why Are We Giving Israel $40 Billion In Aid ?
$40 BILLION AID TO ISRAEL IS ‘LARGEST EVER’ TO ANY COUNTRY SOURCE: UPI U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice said…
Thursday, 9 June 2016
OHP Cops Using New Device To Steal Your Money
OHP USES NEW DEVICE TO SEIZE MONEY DURING TRAFFIC STOPS
SOURCE: NEWS 9
OKLAHOMA CITY -
You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture.That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.
Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.
It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month.
READ MORE...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE...
Israel Still Punishing Palestinians
ISRAEL PUNISHES 83,000 PALESTINIANS OVER TEL AVIV SHOOTING
Israel suspended entry permits for a staggering 83,000 Palestinians Wednesday during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan after the deadly Tel Aviv shooting, in an act of collective punishment that is likely to increase tensions.
The measure from Israeli authorities came as two Palestinians dressed in black shot dead four people at a popular Tel Aviv nightspot, the deadliest attack in a months-long wave of violence, AFP report.
Five people were wounded in addition to the four killed, and the shooting spread panic, with police clearing the area and crowds running for cover.
Police said one of the attackers was arrested, while the other was wounded by gunfire and had undergone surgery.
The market and complex of bars and restaurants is located across the street from Israel’s defence ministry and main army headquarters.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the scene of what he called the cold-blooded terrorist murder after returning from a trip to Moscow and conferred with senior colleagues, including newly installed hardline Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
It said it had frozen permits for 204 relatives of one of the alleged attackers.
Ramadan began on Sunday night, and thousands of Palestinians visit the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, the third-holiest site in Islam, each week during Ramadan.
Violence since October has killed at least 207 Palestinians, 28 Israelis, two Americans, an Eritrean and a Sudanese.
The measure from Israeli authorities came as two Palestinians dressed in black shot dead four people at a popular Tel Aviv nightspot, the deadliest attack in a months-long wave of violence, AFP report.
Five people were wounded in addition to the four killed, and the shooting spread panic, with police clearing the area and crowds running for cover.
Police said one of the attackers was arrested, while the other was wounded by gunfire and had undergone surgery.
The market and complex of bars and restaurants is located across the street from Israel’s defence ministry and main army headquarters.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the scene of what he called the cold-blooded terrorist murder after returning from a trip to Moscow and conferred with senior colleagues, including newly installed hardline Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
We discussed a range of offensive and defensive steps which we shall take in order to act against this phenomenon, Netanyahu’s office quoted the premier as saying.
There will be intensive action by the police, the army and other security services, not just to catch every accomplice to this murder but also to prevent further incidents.
Police said the two attackers were cousins from the Hebron area in the West Bank, and one of the Israeli authorities’ first moves was to revoke tens of thousands of entry permits.
All permits for Ramadan, especially permits for family visits from Judea and Samaria to Israel, are frozen, said a statement from COGAT, the defence ministry unit which manages civilian affairs in the occupied West Bank.
Israelis refer to the West Bank by its biblical names, Judea and Samaria.
It said that 83,000 Palestinians would be affected, adding that hundreds of residents of the Gaza Strip who had received permits to visit relatives and holy sites during Ramadan would also have access frozen.All permits for Ramadan, especially permits for family visits from Judea and Samaria to Israel, are frozen, said a statement from COGAT, the defence ministry unit which manages civilian affairs in the occupied West Bank.
Israelis refer to the West Bank by its biblical names, Judea and Samaria.
It said it had frozen permits for 204 relatives of one of the alleged attackers.
Ramadan began on Sunday night, and thousands of Palestinians visit the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, the third-holiest site in Islam, each week during Ramadan.
Violence since October has killed at least 207 Palestinians, 28 Israelis, two Americans, an Eritrean and a Sudanese.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE...
Tuesday, 7 June 2016
Will Bernie Sanders win California today?
What Do You Think?
It's going to be close, but the delegate count is not enough to win the nomination.
A more useful question is whether Bernie can win enough delegates in California... After all the hype about his "winning Wyoming" it turns out both he and Hillary won 7 delegates. That's a loss for Bernie - he won't ever get the nomination by tying Hillary in delegate numbers.
It's going to be close, but the delegate count is not enough to win the nomination.
A more useful question is whether Bernie can win enough delegates in California... After all the hype about his "winning Wyoming" it turns out both he and Hillary won 7 delegates. That's a loss for Bernie - he won't ever get the nomination by tying Hillary in delegate numbers.
According to Real Clear Politics' combined poll averages, Hillary Clinton is polling at 49.3% in California while Bernie Sanders is at 38.7%, as of April 6, 2016.
Now, Sander's recent wins may embolden his supporters across the country; however, New York is coming up next, and the former New York Senator is polling ahead of Sanders, 53.5% to 42.5%. She is also polling way ahead of Sanders in Pennsylvania, Maryland and other state primaries scheduled for April 26, so Sanders may lose his current momentum by the California primary.
The California primary is in June, which is still a long time away. We'll be able to answer this question a lot better once we know the results of the primaries between now & June - particularly New York & Pennsylvania. If Bernie is able to win NY & PA, I would say that he would have a strong momentum and a good chance to win CA & NJ as well but if he loses in NY & PA, Hillary Clinton would have all the momentum & her nomination would be imminent to the point where California might not even matter. As of today (April 11) most polls show that Hillary leads Bernie in both NY & PA by double digits but there can always be surprises like the one we saw in Michigan. In my personal opinion, Hillary will win all of the upcoming April primaries (NY, PA, CT, DE, MD & RI) and that would pretty much seal her nomination.
California Publicity Rights Violation
ANOTHER BAD RULING IN CALIFORNIA THREATENS TO MASSIVELY UNDERMINE SECTION 230 BY EXEMPTING PUBLICITY RIGHTS
What a week. Just a few days after we wrote about a dangerous ruling in a federal appeals court in California concerning a way to get around Section 230 of the CDA, now we have another problematic CDA 230 ruling from California in the form of a ruling from San Mateo Superior Court judge, Donald Ayoob, that has the potential to do a lot of damage to Section 230 as well as anti-SLAPP efforts in California. Paul Levy has a very detailed post about the case, but we'll try and do a summary here.
The case involves Jason Cross, a "country rap" musician who performs under the name Mikel Knight, who has apparently made a name for himself through a highly aggressive "street team" operation that basically travels around in vans pushing people to buy Knight's CDs -- and there are plenty of accusations of sketchy behavior around how those street teams operate, and how Cross treats the people who work for him. Apparently, Cross was not happy with a Facebook group entitled "Families Against Mike Knight and the MDRST" (MDRST standing for Maverick Dirt Road Street Team, which is what Cross calls the street team). He then used a court in Tennessee to try to get Facebook to identify who was behind the group, and then demanded that the page be taken down. That effort is still ongoing, but has been temporarily postponed, while he then filed a separate lawsuit in California against Facebook and whoever is behind that group, a variety of things, including breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, unfair business practices and various publicity rights violations. Oddly, as Levy points out in his post, despite listing John Does as defendants, the complaint doesn't describe anything anyone did other than Facebook. However, as part of the discovery process, Cross did (of course!) ask Facebook to identify the people behind the group criticizing him.
Facebook, quite reasonably, asked the court to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP law and pointed to Section 230 for an explanation of why it's immune. The ruling, unfortunately, is very, very confused. It grants some of Facebook's request, saying that Facebook didn't breach any agreement in failing to remove the group, but refuses to dismiss the publicity rights claims, stating that publicity rights are "intellectual property" and intellectual property is not covered by Section 230. The first half of the ruling does note that Facebook is not liable for the regular content on those pages and thus it was under no obligation to take them down, but then goes off the rails on the publicity rights claim.
You might wonder where there's a publicity rights claim in any of this, but it appears that Cross is arguing that because the group (a) uses images of himself (as Mikel Knight) and (b) Facebook puts ads on those pages, that this is an abuse of his publicity rights for commercial advantage. Really.
Second, there's the question of whether or not CDA 230 should or should not apply to publicity rights claims. It is true that CDA 230 explicitly carves out "intellectual property," but as Levy notes, there's some debate as to whether or not that applies just to federal IP laws or if it also covers state ones. Publicity rights are a purely state law concept. Of course, I think the argument could go even further, and it could be claimed that publicity rights shouldn't even be considered intellectual property in the first place. I already have issues with lumping copyright and patents together with trademarks as "intellectual property." But adding amorphous and ever changing publicity rights into the same bucket is problematic as well. There is no official definition of what counts as "intellectual property." This is, perhaps, more of a problem in that CDA 230 should have never created such a broad carveout (or should have at least specified "copyright" or whatever), but stretching the exemption to cover publicity rights is dangerous -- especially when courts like this one seem so confused about what's actually covered by publicity rights.
Levy also notes that there's a First Amendment issue behind all of this, in that it's pretty clear that Cross is seeking to suppress people saying things about him that he doesn't like. Levy -- who has been investigating this case to see if his organization, Public Citizen, should get involved (and his post details talking to a number of people who used to be a part of Cross's "street team") -- notes that he's intending to file an amicus brief in Facebook's inevitable appeal.
Either way, it's unfortunate that a judge would get such issues so incredibly wrong in a manner that could have a serious impact on free expression. Hopefully, the ruling is quickly reversed on appeal.
The case involves Jason Cross, a "country rap" musician who performs under the name Mikel Knight, who has apparently made a name for himself through a highly aggressive "street team" operation that basically travels around in vans pushing people to buy Knight's CDs -- and there are plenty of accusations of sketchy behavior around how those street teams operate, and how Cross treats the people who work for him. Apparently, Cross was not happy with a Facebook group entitled "Families Against Mike Knight and the MDRST" (MDRST standing for Maverick Dirt Road Street Team, which is what Cross calls the street team). He then used a court in Tennessee to try to get Facebook to identify who was behind the group, and then demanded that the page be taken down. That effort is still ongoing, but has been temporarily postponed, while he then filed a separate lawsuit in California against Facebook and whoever is behind that group, a variety of things, including breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, unfair business practices and various publicity rights violations. Oddly, as Levy points out in his post, despite listing John Does as defendants, the complaint doesn't describe anything anyone did other than Facebook. However, as part of the discovery process, Cross did (of course!) ask Facebook to identify the people behind the group criticizing him.
Facebook, quite reasonably, asked the court to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP law and pointed to Section 230 for an explanation of why it's immune. The ruling, unfortunately, is very, very confused. It grants some of Facebook's request, saying that Facebook didn't breach any agreement in failing to remove the group, but refuses to dismiss the publicity rights claims, stating that publicity rights are "intellectual property" and intellectual property is not covered by Section 230. The first half of the ruling does note that Facebook is not liable for the regular content on those pages and thus it was under no obligation to take them down, but then goes off the rails on the publicity rights claim.
You might wonder where there's a publicity rights claim in any of this, but it appears that Cross is arguing that because the group (a) uses images of himself (as Mikel Knight) and (b) Facebook puts ads on those pages, that this is an abuse of his publicity rights for commercial advantage. Really.
Here, it is alleged that Facebook had knowledge since October 2014 that pages using Knight's likeness and identity were being created on its site.... Knight states that he did not consent to these pages or the advertising Facebook placed on them.... Facebook's financial performance is based on its user base; accordingly, Facebook' s alleged use of Knight's image on the unauthorized pages generates advertising revenue for the company.... Knight states that Facebook's unauthorized use of his image has resulted in substantial harm.... Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown a probability of prevailing on their rights of publicity claims. Because the Sixth Cause of Action is a derivative claim that may arise from either or both the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, here to Plaintiffs have shown a probability of prevailing.This seems wrong on a number of different accounts. First, and most importantly, how the hell is this a legitimate publicity rights claim? Publicity rights are supposed to be about stopping companies from using an image of a famous person in a manner that suggests endorsement when the person did no such thing. It's a very, very twisted (and incorrect) notion to argue that because Facebook has some ads on the same page as a group that complains about Cross/Knight that it's violating his publicity rights. As Levy notes in his post:
If this ruling is upheld, it will blow a gaping hole in the immunity provided by section 230. Plaintiffs who are unhappy about being criticized on any platform provided by an online service provider will be able to force the removal of those materials, and without even showing that there is anything false or otherwise tortious about the criticism – all they will have to argue is that they did not give permission for the use of their names or images in the criticism and that will be enough to make out a viable legal claim against the hosting company.That's frightening. But, as Levy also notes, this seems to clearly be a misreading of the law:
...it simply cannot be the case that a violation of the right of publicity can be found whenever someone talks about a celebrity and thereby makes a profit. People Magazine and the National Enquirer, for example, and a variety of other publications make their money writing about individuals about whom the public has an insatiable appetite for information, but they do not require the celebrities’ permission to write about them. Indeed, to the extent that the right of publicity is analogous to trademark rights, it applies when a use of the celebrity’s name and likeness creates a likelihood that consumers will believe that the celebrity has endorsed the company that used the name and likeness (analogous to the “likelihood of confusion” requirement).The judge here is just confused.
Second, there's the question of whether or not CDA 230 should or should not apply to publicity rights claims. It is true that CDA 230 explicitly carves out "intellectual property," but as Levy notes, there's some debate as to whether or not that applies just to federal IP laws or if it also covers state ones. Publicity rights are a purely state law concept. Of course, I think the argument could go even further, and it could be claimed that publicity rights shouldn't even be considered intellectual property in the first place. I already have issues with lumping copyright and patents together with trademarks as "intellectual property." But adding amorphous and ever changing publicity rights into the same bucket is problematic as well. There is no official definition of what counts as "intellectual property." This is, perhaps, more of a problem in that CDA 230 should have never created such a broad carveout (or should have at least specified "copyright" or whatever), but stretching the exemption to cover publicity rights is dangerous -- especially when courts like this one seem so confused about what's actually covered by publicity rights.
Levy also notes that there's a First Amendment issue behind all of this, in that it's pretty clear that Cross is seeking to suppress people saying things about him that he doesn't like. Levy -- who has been investigating this case to see if his organization, Public Citizen, should get involved (and his post details talking to a number of people who used to be a part of Cross's "street team") -- notes that he's intending to file an amicus brief in Facebook's inevitable appeal.
Either way, it's unfortunate that a judge would get such issues so incredibly wrong in a manner that could have a serious impact on free expression. Hopefully, the ruling is quickly reversed on appeal.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE...
SCIENTISTS GROWING HUMAN ORGANS IN PIGS: “WE THINK THERE IS VERY LOW POTENTIAL FOR A HUMAN BRAIN TO GROW”
SOURCE: CRYPTOGON
The main concern is that the human cells might migrate to the developing pig’s brain and make it, in some way, more human.
Pablo Ross says this is unlikely but is a key reason why the research is proceeding with such caution: “We think there is very low potential for a human brain to grow, but this is something we will be investigating.”
His team has previously injected human stem cells into pig embryos but without first creating the genetic niche. Prof Ross said although they later found human cells in several parts of the developing foetus, they “struggled to compete” with the pig cells. By deleting a key gene involved in the creation of the pig pancreas, they hope the human cells will have more success creating a human-like pancreas.
Other teams in the United States have created human-pig chimeric embryos but none has allowed the foetuses to be born.
Pablo Ross says this is unlikely but is a key reason why the research is proceeding with such caution: “We think there is very low potential for a human brain to grow, but this is something we will be investigating.”
His team has previously injected human stem cells into pig embryos but without first creating the genetic niche. Prof Ross said although they later found human cells in several parts of the developing foetus, they “struggled to compete” with the pig cells. By deleting a key gene involved in the creation of the pig pancreas, they hope the human cells will have more success creating a human-like pancreas.
Other teams in the United States have created human-pig chimeric embryos but none has allowed the foetuses to be born.
READ MORE...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE...
Friday, 3 June 2016
IN DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, NYPD MOVES TO MAKE RESISTING ARREST A FELONY
SOURCE: ALTERNEWS
On Wednesday, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton urged state legislators to consider increasing the penalty for resisting arrest from a misdemeanor to a felony. The change, he argued, would help New Yorkers “get around this idea that you can resist arrest. You can’t.” It would also give cops an easy way to turn victims of their own worst impulses into the worst class of criminal.
In theory, a resisting arrest charge allows the state to further punish suspects who endanger the safety of police officers as they’re being apprehended; in practice, it gives tautological justification to cops who enjoy roughing people up. Why did you use force against that suspect, officer? Because she was resisting arrest.How do I know you’re telling the truth? Because I charged her with it, sir.Consider a few recent would-be felons:
- Jahmil-El Cuffee, who was charged with resisting arrest after he found himself on the receiving end of a head-stomp from a barbarous cop because he was allegedly rolling a joint. (“Stop resisting!” cops screamed at him as he lay helpless, pinned under a pile of officers.)
- Denise Stewart, who was charged with resisting arrest after a gang of New York’s Finest threw her half-naked from her own apartment into the lobby of her building. (They had the wrong apartment, it turned out.)
- Santiago Hernandez, who was charged with resisting arrest after a group of cops beat the shit out of him following a stop-and-frisk. “One kicks me, he steps back. Another one comes to punch me and he steps back…They were taking turns on me like a gang,” Hernandez told reporters.
- Eric Garner, who no doubt would have been charged with resisting had the chokehold from Daniel Pantaleo not ended his life first.
Cops using resistance as an excuse for their own abuse isn’t some wild conspiracy theory. Sam Walker, a law-enforcement expert and retired University of Nebraska-Omaha criminal justice professor, told WNYC in December:
“There’s a widespread pattern in American policing where resisting arrest charges are used to sort of cover – and that phrase is used – the officer’s use of force,” said Walker, the accountability expert from the University of Nebraska. “Why did the officer use force? Well, the person was resisting arrest.”
Fortunately, city district attorneys know the drill, and often have the good sense to dismiss resisting charges when perps are brought up in court. But Bratton would like to see that provision thrown out as well. “The vast majority [of charges] might end up being dismissed,” he said at the joint hearing of state senate committees Wednesday. “We’re asking district attorneys to treat them more seriously than they have been treated in the past.”
Anticipating criticism, Bratton told the assembled lawmakers that he already had a plan to curb abuse: the department would use its CompStat arrest-tracking system to monitor officers who make lots of resisting charges that are eventually dropped, leaving oversight of the NYPD to the NYPD itself.SHARE THIS ARTICLE...
Wednesday, 1 June 2016
UNITED ARAB MERCENARIES NOW FIGHTING IN YEMEN
BY BRANDON TURBEVILLE
Receiving scant attention from Western mainstream media outlets except for a few notable exceptions, Americans and many alternative media outlets have remained ignorant to the fact that private mercenaries from Blackwater (aka Academi) appear to have been contracted by the GCC Gulf state feudal monarchies to assist in the military war of terror in Yemen against the Houthi rebels and the embattled Yemeni people.
Still, on December 9, a flurry of reports from media outlets such as Press TV, TeleSur TV, Al-Manar, Al –Bawaba, andColombia Reports have revealed that around 15 Blackwater mercenaries have been killed in a fierce battles with the Houthi forces.
Al-Masirah, Yemen’s Arabic language website reported that the Commander-In-Chief of the firm’s operation in Yemen, a Mexican national, was killed in the al-Omari district of Ta’izz Province.
Press TV reports that a number of British, French, and Australian advisers and commanders as well as six Colombian soldiers were killed.
In late November of 2015, it was reported that around 1,800 former Latin American soldiers who had been recruited by a program once managed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince were being trained in the desert of the United Arab Emirates to be used against the Houthis at some point.
It was estimated that about 450 of the soldiers were from Colombia.
The New York Times wrote that “The United Arab Emirates has secretly dispatched hundreds of Colombian mercenaries to Yemen to fight in that country’s raging conflict, adding a volatile new element in a complex proxy war that has drawn in the United States and Iran.”
El Tiempo placed the mercenary presence much earlier, however, suggesting that 100 Colombian soldiers had entered Yemen in October, a claim corroborated by The New York Times.
Colombia Reports stated that the mercenaries were being paid around $1,000 more per week than what they would have been paid as part of the Emirati deployment, and over triple the amount they would have made as members of the Colombian military. The contracts are allegedly for three-month-front-line service.
The New York Times reported on November 25,
The Colombian troops now in Yemen, handpicked from a brigade of some 1,800 Latin American soldiers training at an Emirati military base, were woken up in the middle of the night for their deployment to Yemen last month. They were ushered out of their barracks as their bunkmates continued sleeping, and were later issued dog tags and ranks in the Emirati military. Those left behind are now being trained to use grenade launchers and armored vehicles that Emirati troops are currently using in Yemen.
Emirati officials have made a point of recruiting Colombian troops over other Latin American soldiers because they consider the Colombians more battle tested in guerrilla warfare, having spent decades battling gunmen of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, in the jungles of Colombia.
The exact mission of the Colombians in Yemen is unclear, and one person involved in the project said it could be weeks before they saw regular combat. They join hundreds of Sudanese soldiers whom Saudi Arabia has recruited to fight there as part of the coalition.
In addition, a recent United Nations report cited claims that some 400 Eritrean troops might be embedded with the Emirati soldiers in Yemen — something that, if true, could violate a United Nations resolution restricting Eritrean military activities.
The United States has also been participating in the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen, providing logistical support, including airborne refueling, to the nations conducting the airstrikes. The Pentagon has sent a team to Saudi Arabia to provide targeting intelligence to the coalition militaries regularly used for the airstrikes.
The New York Times also reports that, interestingly enough, the training program and the use of Colombian and other third world mercenaries by Gulf State countries has been taking place since as far back as 2010. The article states,
Hundreds of Colombian troops have been trained in the Emirates since the project began in 2010 — so many that the Colombian government once tried to broker an agreement with Emirati officials to stanch the flow headed to the Persian Gulf. Representatives from the two governments met, but an agreement was never signed.
Most of the recruiting of former troops in Colombia is done by Global Enterprises, a Colombian company run by a former special operations commander named Oscar Garcia Batte. Mr. Batte is also co-commander of the brigade of Colombian troops in the Emirates, and is part of the force now deployed in Yemen.
It should also be noted that Blackwater, or at least Erik Prince, was involved in setting up the program early on, although the firm currently denies ties to the program in 2015. Foreign media outlets obviously disagree on the level to which Blackwater and/or Prince’s firm are involved in the program. That the foreign fighters are mercenaries, however, is beyond doubt.
According to Al-Masdar’s Yemen correspondent, Tony Toh, another piece of the puzzle has now been provided in regards to the mission and methodology of the Saudi-Blackwater cooperation. Toh states that Al-Masirah News, a Yemeni news organization, has revealed that Reflex Responses Management Consultancy LLC is the company doing the actual hiring of mercenaries from Blackwater to fight in Yemen.
RRMC LLC is an Emirati-owned company that specializes in hiring foreign mercenaries and fighters for the UAE’s military.
According to the Yemeni news source, Major General ‘Issa Seif Mohammad Al-Mazrawi, an Emirati officer, is the individual most heavily involved in the deployment of these mercenaries. Al-Masirah also reports that a contract worth $529 million was signed between RRMC and the UAE government in March, 2015, around the beginning of the Yemeni crisis.
It is clear that the Saudis and the Emirates are grasping at any straws within their reach in order to shore up their faltering military campaign in Yemen and make up for the weakness of their own military forces that have repeatedly demonstrated that the GCC countries are nothing but paper tigers.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)