Fedge

POST IT ON YOUR FACEBOOK Dj Ziggy - PARTY MIX (late 2010) DOWNLOAD LINK - http://www.mediafire.com/?lvkyklo4zk7... BECOME A FAN (FACEBOOK) - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ya-Boy-... For Bookings 0449858383 (text messages only) or facebook message - http://www.facebook.com/djziggy MORE TO COME!!!

Police need a wiretap order to seize text messages from your wireless provider, Canada's highest court has ruled.

Pheed is a free social multimedia platform that enables users to create, inspire and share text, photos, videos, audio tracks, voice-notes and live broadcasts. We also provide monetization options should users want to place a pay wall on their content or host a live pay-per-view broadcast event. Should a user decide to monetize, they select pricing and earn directly, we remain as always the platform holding no rights and no ownership to the content uploaded.

H.R. 748: Universal National Service Act

For the past few months, some of the world’s leading cryptographers have been keeping a closely guarded secret about a pioneering new invention. Today, they’ve decided it’s time to tell all. Back in October, the startup tech firm Silent Circle ruffled governments’ feathers with a “surveillance-proof” smartphone app to allow...

FBI Won't Release WikiLeaks File - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. In a letter dated January 14, 2013, the FBI responds to my FOIA request and states that WikiLeaks file is now an "investigative file" which is exempt from disclosure. The letter goes on to state that the responsive records could "reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings"

State and local law enforcement groups want wireless providers to store detailed information about your SMS messages for at least two years -- in case they're needed for future criminal investigations. Read this article by Declan McCullagh on CNET News.

PubMed comprises more than 22 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Flickr/mpeake See Also This Is The Section Of The NDAA That Is Causing People To Freak Out One New York Judge Is Holding Her Ground Against The Biggest Names In Government Here's What You Need To Know About The NDAA's Indefinite Detention Clause On Tuesday a federal appeals court ruled the government can indefinitely detain anyone , at least until the courts decide whether to permanently block or confirm the indefinite detention clause (i.e. §1021) of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.  That the NDAA is fully enforceable right now is scary enough , but the details of the ruling are truly bothersome  to those that have been following the rulings in the case. First, a recap why §1021 was ruled unconstitutional and how the government reacted. Journalists and activists sued to stop the provisions, which allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone who provides "substantial support" to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or "associated forces," including "any person who has committed a belligerent act" in the aid of such enemy forces. In May District Judge Katherine Forrest sided with the plaintiffs and ordered a temporary block on the grounds that the provisions are so vague they are unconstitutional under the First (i.e. free speech/press) and Fifth (i.e. due process) Amendments. The government then  argued that it " construes the reach of the injunction to apply only to the plaintiffs before the Court ." So Forrest clarified her decision  in June to  "leave no doubt" that U.S. citizens can't be indefinitely detained without due process. Last month Forrest  ordered a permanent injunction  on the clause, the government appealed, and Appeals Court Judge  Raymond  Lohier  reinstated  the indefinite detention provisions pending a decision by today's panel. On Tuesday Judges Lohier, Denny Chin  and Christopher Droney  agreed with a government motion of appeal  that the plaintiffs "are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military," then cited the text of the NDAA to rule that "the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States." So, according to the government's new argument, they would never indefinitely detain the plaintiffs or any U.S. citizen in the first place. And the judges took them at their word. Furthermore, the appeals court judges ruled that Forrest's injunction went beyond the NDAA and limited "the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF). But Judge Forrest was careful to protect the AUMF. Previously the government argued that the NDAA adds nothing new to  the AUMF , which was a resolution passed a week after 9/11 that gives the president authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons." The NDAA actually does add language to the AUMF , stating that " The President also has the authority  to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces." What Judge Forrest did was rule the extra part unconstitutionally vague while  allowing the section of the NDAA that authorizes the government to indefinitely detain “those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the actual 9/11 attacks.” In short, on Tuesday the appeals court judges took the government at its word  while ignoring the fact that the NDAA's vague language creates detainment powers that are nearly boundless . The appeals court essentially ignored both the entire argument of the plaintiffs and Forrest's subsequent ruling that the fears §1021  could impact First Amendment rights are "chilling," "reasonable" and "real." Forrest provided the government the opportunity to define which actions and associations would lead to indefinite detention—thereby limiting the scope of indefinite detention powers—but the government chose not to do so. Forrest noted that there is a " strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention," and right now we have no clue what we could be locked up for . As a kicker, the three-judge panel  said Forrest restricted the AUMF when she made sure not to. SEE ALSO:  The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public  >

The United States has warned European governments against supporting a Palestinian bid for enhanced status at the United Nations , saying such a move "would be extremely counterproductive" and threatening "significant negative consequences" for the Palestinian Authority, including financial sanctions. A US memorandum, seen by the Guardian, said Palestinian statehood "can only be achieved via direct negotiations with the Israelis" and urged European governments "to support [American] efforts" to block the bid. The message was communicated by officials to representatives of European governments at the UN general assembly (UNGA) in New York last week. Palestinian officials accused the US of exerting "tremendous pressure" on European governments to oppose their bid for upgraded "non-member state" status at the UNGA. Announced by president Mahmoud Abbas last week (video) , the move is a significant diminution of Palestinian ambitions after its application for full statehood failed last year when it was blocked by the US in the security council. The Palestinians will wait until after the US presidential election in early November before proceeding with their bid for upgraded status. However, they insist they will press for a vote by the end of the year and are confident of winning a comfortable majority among the UN's 193 countries. The US has no veto at the general assembly. The memorandum – described by one diplomatic source as "private correspondence" – said the US was continuing to work for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and urged both parties "to avoid provocative one-sided actions that could undermine trust or otherwise distract from the pursuit of peace". A Palestinian resolution on non-member state status "would have significant negative consequences, for the peace process itself, for the UN system, as well as our ability to maintain our significant financial support for the Palestinian Authority". It added that a successful resolution could lead to Palestinian participation as a state in international bodies such as the international criminal court. Israel is concerned that Palestinian recourse to the ICC could have repercussions for its policies on settlements, the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. "We believe your government understands what is at stake here, and – like us – wants to avoid a collision at the coming UNGA session," said the text. "We hope you are willing to support our efforts … We would appreciate knowing where your government stands on this issue. We would also be interested in knowing whether you have been approached on this matter by Palestinian representatives." Hanan Ashwari, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation executive committee, described the memorandum as "typical American behaviour but also overkill". "It is ridiculous and unconscionable the way they put themselves at the service of Israel in such a blatant way. This is tremendous American pressure and bias." She said most European countries had already decided their position on the issue: "I don't think [the US] will make countries change their minds." Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said the memorandum reflected the US position but he hoped that "the Europeans will follow their interests and choose peace over settlements". One European diplomat said that, until recently, US officials believed a "diplomatic ceasefire" was in force and that the Palestinians would not pursue the statehood issue at the general assembly. But pressure from street protests in the West Bank in recent weeks had stiffened Abbas's resolve, and the current consensus among diplomats was that the Palestinians were determined to press ahead. There were differing views among European countries on the wisdom of the Palestinians' move, the diplomat added. "The closer we get to the prospect of a vote in the UN general assembly, the more concerned the US administration is likely to be. This letter is an expression of their well-known position against such a vote. But if we are to persuade Abbas not to pull the trigger, a serious alternative needs to be put on the table, and fast." A second European diplomat said the US had "made it very clear to all of us that they're opposed to any [Palestinian] move at the UN". He also criticised the Palestinians for not engaging in "serious, high-level diplomacy" on the issue. Some European countries are alarmed at the prospect of the US withdrawing financial support for the Palestinian Authority in the wake of a bid for upgraded status, fearing that the EU would have to fill the funding gap. Following the Palestinians' acceptance as a state by the United Nations cultural and heritage body, Unesco, the US cut off funding as a punitive measure. The US had contributed 22% of Unesco's annual budget. Discussions among European governments on whether to support the Palestinians' bid are due to be held this week. However the 27 member states are unlikely to forge a common line. The US state department declined to comment on the memorandum.NEWLINE