Sunday, March 23, 2014

FREE SPEECH DANGER: PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS PLAN TO REDEFINE AND DESTROY THE FIRST AMENDMENT! And much more....

One Citizen Speaking...


WARNING: CALIFORNIA DMV CREDIT CARD DATA BREACH?

Posted: 22 Mar 2014 07:06 PM PDT

It appears that those of us who use the on-line renewal services at the California Department of Motor Vehicles may have had our credit card information stolen.

dmv

Is the California DMV telling the whole story?


c-dmv
STATEMENT ON CREDIT CARD PROCESSING ISSUE

"The Department of Motor Vehicles has been alerted by law enforcement authorities to a potential security issue within its credit card processing services.

There is no evidence at this time of a direct breach of the DMV’s computer system. However, out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of protecting the sensitive information of California drivers, the DMV has opened an investigation into any potential security breach in conjunction with state and federal law enforcement.

In its investigation, the department is performing a forensic review of its systems and seeking information regarding any potential breach from both the external vendor that processes the DMV’s credit card transactions and the credit card companies themselves.

Protecting the identity and security of our customers is our highest priority and we fully understand the potential impact any breach of security can have. The department has implemented heightened monitoring of all DMV website traffic and credit card transactions. We will immediately notify any affected DMV customers as quickly as possible if we find any issue. DMV customers are also encouraged to closely monitor their credit card statements and transactions for any fraudulent or unusual activity and report it to their credit card company immediately.

DMV customers can continue to pay with cash, check, or money order in person at their local DMV office. Californians with questions about fraud or identity theft can access important information on through thisDMV Identity Fraud Factsheet.

We will continue to provide consumer updates on our websitewww.dmv.ca.gov as we gather more factual information.”

DMV - Important Information

Can you trust any California Agency run by the progressive socialist democrats?

It appears that there is another, more comprehensive story …

krebs

The California Department of Motor Vehicles appears to have suffered a wide-ranging credit card data breach involving online payments for DMV-related services, according to banks in California and elsewhere that received alerts this week about compromised cards that all had been previously used online at the California DMV.

The alert, sent privately by MasterCard to financial institutions this week, did not name the breached entity but said the organization in question experienced a “card-not-present” breach — industry speak for transactions conducted online. The alert further stated that the date range of the potentially compromised transactions extended from Aug. 2, 2013 to Jan. 31, 2014, and that the data stolen included the card number, expiration date, and three-digit security code printed on the back of cards.

Five different financial institutions contacted by this publication — including two mid-sized banks in California — confirmed receipt of the MasterCard notice, and said that all of the cards MasterCard alerted them about as compromised had been used for charges bearing the notation “STATE OF CALIF DMV INT”.


A representative from MasterCard, speaking on background, confirmed sending out an alert this week. According to bank sources, Visa has not sent out a similar alert. A Visa spokesperson said “Visa cannot comment on potential third party data compromises or ongoing investigations.”  <Source>

Follow the issue at Krebs on Security for a more realistic look at the California DMV data breach.

Bottom line …

The progressive socialist democrats who run California are loath to admit to any adverse events that occurred on their watch and cannot be trusted to tell the truth early enough to mitigate further damage. If you are like me and renewed both my driver’s license and registration online, you may wish to change your credit card number by contacting your credit card company.

-- steve

FREE SPEECH DANGER: PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS PLAN TO REDEFINE AND DESTROY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Posted: 22 Mar 2014 05:29 PM PDT

There is little doubt in my mind that there exists in the United States Senate, a fifth column that wishes to destroy America from within. Perhaps they believe in a socialist/communist ideology, are being blackmailed over previous and current criminal and moral behavior, or perhaps they simply do it for the money. As we have seen one man, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is not opposed to bottling-up strategic bills that affect the defense and economics of the United States. And, as we have also seen, Reid has no qualms about manipulating the Senate Rules to allow a bare majority to pass what a super-majority might table or reject.

Two of the most suspect, radical, and dangerous Senators in America (other than Harry Reid) …

sg

On the left, we have progressive socialist democrat Chuck Schumer, a dishonest radical who was one of the proximate causes for the Indy Mac Bank Collapse with his media releases, and on the right, we have RINO (Republican In Name Only) Lindsey Graham, who like his best friend John McCain can’t wait to jump the aisle and help the progressive socialist democrats pursue their radical agenda.

Senate Bill 987, known as the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2013,” is the radical vehicle to subvert the First Amendment and stifle free speech in America …

Notwithstanding a bill title is as deceptive as the progressive socialist democrat’ Obamacare title, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” which does not protect patients and as we have seen will not produce affordable care. So why should anyone be surprised that the Free Flow of Information Act actually impedes the free flow of information in America?

By defining who is a journalist and what information is protected, the government’s agencies can proceed against any individual who self-publishes their own news site and expands the criteria for prosecuting so-called credentialed journalists. Totally unacceptable in this day of the citizen journalist as it was in the days of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.

A clear and present danger to the First Amendment, Free Speech and the free flow of information … [My comments in blue italic]

Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield

The bill's protections would apply to a "covered journalist," defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist" who would be granted the privileges of the law.

The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as "newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast ... or motion picture for public showing."

While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists.

[Anyone who disseminated or discussed non-protected information would be subject to harassment, prosecution, and criminal fines and other penalties.]

The overall bill would protect reporters and news media organizations from being required to reveal the identities of confidential sources, but it does not grant an absolute privilege to journalists.

[The bill would circumvent the protections granted to a free press. Making any government claim of “national security” – especially when those claims can be classified and are unknown to journalists and others – sufficient to harass or prosecute journalists if they do not reveal their confidential sources. This would chill free speech to the point where any whistleblower that brings government corruption, malfeasance, or other embarrassing information to the attention of the public would not be safe from harassment and prosecution.]

The bill makes clear that before the government asks a news organization to divulge sources, it first must go to a judge, who would supervise any subpoenas or court orders for information. Such orders would be limited, if possible, "in purpose, subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling disclosure of peripheral, nonessential or speculative information."

[This is window dressing as we have seen government prosecutors file false declarations and withhold exculpatory information from the courts.And, given the number of radicalized and activist judges, one can never be sure that the judicial fix isn’t already in place. ] 

As reported by the Associated Press

How radical are the supporters of this legislation? Judge for yourself which one of these progressive socialist democrats or RINOs is worthy of your vote in upcoming elections …

Sen Baldwin, Tammy [WI] - 6/3/2013 
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 6/3/2013 
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] - 6/3/2013 
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 2/24/2014 
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] - 7/25/2013 
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 6/10/2013 
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 5/16/2013 
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Hirono, Mazie K. [HI] - 7/25/2013 
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 5/22/2013 
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 9/12/2013 
Sen Markey, Edward J. [MA] - 2/11/2014 
Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] - 7/17/2013 
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] - 3/13/2014 
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Udall, Tom [NM] - 5/21/2013 
Sen Warren, Elizabeth [MA] - 3/13/2014
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] - 5/22/2013(withdrawn - 9/30/2013)

Here is what the Congressional Research Service says …

S.987
Latest Title: Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 5/16/2013)      Cosponsors (23) 
Related Bills: H.R.1962
Latest Major Action: 11/6/2013 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 238.  Senate Reports: 113-118


SUMMARY: 

Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 - (Sec. 2) Prohibits a federal entity (an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the federal government with the power to issue a subpoena or other compulsory process), in any proceeding or in connection with any issue arising under federal law, from compelling a covered journalist to disclose protected information, unless a U.S. judge in the jurisdiction where the compulsory process has been or would be issued determines, after providing notice and an opportunity for the journalist to be heard, that all reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted and that separate specified conditions have been met depending on whether the matter is a criminal investigation or prosecution. (Thus, establishes a qualified privilege for journalists to withhold confidential information unless a judge makes a determination to compel disclosure under conditions that apply differently in criminal and civil matters.)

Defines a "covered journalist" as a person who:

  • is, or on the date on which the protected information sought was obtained or created by the person asserting protection, was an employee, independent contractor, or agent of an entity or service that disseminates news or information by various means (newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service; news program; magazine or other periodical; or through television or radio broadcast, multichannel video programming distributor, or motion picture for public showing) and who, with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material to disseminate news to the public, engages, or as of the relevant date, engaged in the regular gathering, preparation, collection, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing on such matters through specified methods; or
  • at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate news to the public and regularly conducted interviews, reviewed documents, captured images of events, or directly observed events, and either: (1) would have been included as a member of specified news or information services for any continuous 1-year period within the 20 years prior to the relevant date or any continuous 3-month period within the 5 years prior to the relevant date; (2) had substantially contributed, as an author, editor, photographer, or producer, to a significant number of articles, stories, programs, or publications within 5 years prior to the relevant date; or (3) was a student participating in a journalistic medium at an institution of higher education on the relevant date.

Provides for supervisors, editors, employers, parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates of such persons to be treated as covered journalists.

Authorizes a U.S. judge to provide the protections of this Act to a person who does not meet the definition of a covered journalist if such protections would be in the interest of justice and necessary to protect lawful and legitimate news-gathering activities.

Excludes from the definition of a "covered journalist": (1) any person or entity whose principal function is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization; and (2) specified foreign powers or agents of foreign powers, members or affiliates of foreign terrorist organizations, specially designated global terrorists, and other terrorist organizations or people reasonably likely to commit, attempt, or provide support for terrorism.

Defines "protected information" as:

  • information identifying a source who provided information under a promise or agreement of confidentiality made by a covered journalist as part of engaging in journalism; or
  • any records, contents of a communication, documents, or information that a covered journalist obtained or created as part of engaging in journalism and upon a promise or agreement of confidentiality.

Requires, as a prerequisite for compelled disclosure in a criminal investigation or prosecution, a determination by the judge that:

  • if the party seeking to compel disclosure is the federal government, based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered journalist, there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime has occurred;
  • based on such public or source information, the protected information is essential to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution;
  • the Attorney General certifies that the decision to request compelled disclosure was consistent with federal regulations, if compelled disclosure is sought by a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in circumstances governed by regulations specifying DOJ policy with respect to the news media; and
  • the covered journalist has not established by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would be contrary to public interest, including the interest in gathering and disseminating information or news as well as maintaining the free flow of information and the public interest in compelling disclosure, including the extent of any harm to national security.

Requires, in matters other than criminal investigations or prosecutions, based on public information or information obtained from a source other than the covered journalist, a determination by the judge that:

  • the protected information sought is essential to the resolution of the matter, and
  • the party seeking to compel disclosure establishes that the interest in compelling disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in gathering and disseminating the information or news at issue and maintaining the free flow of information.

Prohibits such compelled disclosure conditions from precluding: (1) warrant requirements for certain communications under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or (2) search and seizure procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

(Sec. 3) Provides an exception from such judicial determination requirements, and thereby makes the qualified privilege inapplicable, for compelled disclosures of information or items obtained as the result of the eyewitness observations of, or obtained during the course of, alleged criminal conduct by the covered journalist , including any physical evidence or visual or audio recording of the conduct.

Prohibits such exception from applying, and instead requires the appropriate judicial determinations for compelled disclosure, subject to other specified exceptions, if the alleged criminal conduct is the act of communicating the documents or information at issue (thereby preempting certain provisions of Privacy Protection Act of 1980 relating to the seizure of materials when there is probable cause to believe that a member of the media has committed a crime by receiving, possessing, or communicating national defense or classified information).

(Sec. 4) Provides an additional exception from judicial determination requirements, and thereby makes the qualified privilege inapplicable, for compelled disclosures of protected information that is reasonably necessary to stop, prevent, or mitigate a specific case of death, kidnapping, substantial bodily harm, certain offenses against minors, or the incapacitation or destruction of critical infrastructure.

(Sec. 5) Sets forth a separate framework of judicial findings for a court to make under a preponderance of the evidence standard to compel disclosure of protected information sought by the federal government in criminal investigations or prosecutions involving an act of terrorism or other acts that have caused, or are reasonably likely to cause, significant and articulable harm to national security, including a standard designated specifically for matters involving an alleged unlawful disclosure of properly classified information.

Directs federal courts, in determining what constitutes harm to national security, to give appropriate deference to a specific factual showing submitted by the head of any executive branch agency concerned.

Prohibits such compelled disclosure based solely on the potential for a subsequent unlawful disclosure by the source sought to be identified without any showing of additional facts beyond such potential disclosure.

(Sec. 6) Requires the compelled disclosure standards and exemptions under this Act to apply in the same manner when information from the account of a person known to be, or reasonably likely to be, a covered journalist is sought from a covered service provider. Provides an exception from certain compelled disclosure requirements with respect to service providers when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) requests telephone toll and electronic communications transactional records for counterintelligence purposes, thereby enabling such disclosure to be compelled without reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred and without a certification from the Attorney General.

Defines "covered service provider" as:

  • any person that transmits information of the customer's choosing by electronic means;
  • a telecommunications carrier, information service, interactive computer service, or information content provider under the Communications Act of 1934;
  • a remote computing or electronic communications service; or
  • any commercial entity that maintains records related to a covered journalist.

Requires a covered journalist to be given notice, and an opportunity to be heard, before a judge may compel disclosure from such service providers.

Permits notice requirements to be delayed if the judge determines by clear and convincing evidence that such notice would: (1) pose a clear and substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation, (2) risk grave harm to national security, or (3) present an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.

Specifies that a substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation exists when the target of the investigation may learn of the investigation and destroy evidence if notice is provided.

Allows the court to extend the delay of notice under specified circumstances.

(Sec. 7) Prohibits this Act from superseding, diluting, or precluding any law or court decision addressing compelled disclosure by a covered journalist or service provider of: (1) information identifying a source who provided information without a promise or agreement of confidentiality made by the covered journalist as part of engaging in journalism; or (2) records, other information, or contents of a communication obtained without a promise or agreement of confidentiality.

(Sec. 8) Allows a judge to: (1) receive and consider submissions from the parties in camera or under seal and, if necessary, ex parte; and (2) find a journalist to be in civil or criminal contempt for a failure to comply with an order compelling disclosure of protected information.

Requires courts of appeal to provide an expedited appeal process.

(Sec. 9) Prohibits this Act from being construed to: (1) preempt any law or claim relating to defamation, slander, or libel; (2) modify privacy requirements relating to a federal agency's disclosure of records pertaining to individuals; (3) modify certain grand jury secrecy rules; (4) create new obligations or affect the authorities of federal entities with respect to the acquisition or dissemination of information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA); or (5) preclude voluntary disclosure of information to a federal entity in a situation not governed by this Act.

(Sec. 10) Directs the DOJ Inspector General to conduct an audit of the use of this Act through December 31, 2016, and to report to Congress regarding its examination of: (1) each instance in which a court failed to compel the disclosure of protected information, and (2) whether any procedural impediments have had a detrimental operational impact on the activities of the FBI. Permits the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to provide comments to be included in such report.

You will note that this isn’t even the legalese legislative language of the bill which can be found here.

Bottom line …

We have seen that the hyper-political Federal Communications Commission tried to insert “information gathering monitors” in our nation’s newsrooms to monitor “fairness” as defined by the progressive socialist democrats. See my previous blog post, Is John Podesta Using the FCC to Lead a Fight Against Conservative Talk Radio Again?  that illustrates how Obama’s cadre of progressive socialist democrats are trying to infiltrate the media to control the political content. Not that the mainstream media needs any encouragement to support the progressive viewpoint. .

I concerned that one of the most radical progressive socialist democrat, Senator Chuck Schumer, wants to destroy the First Amendment rights of the media, not by curtailing free speech, but by redefining who is a reporter, who is exempt from the First Amendment privileges, and to prohibit and criminalize certain information gathering techniques.

We must remove these radical progressive socialist democrats and their RINO enablers from Congress in 2014 and the White House in 2016. This is our last chance to save the America we know and love before the socialists and communists redefine America as a cross between a socialist France and a Mexican keptocracy.

-- steve

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

RT @anti_commie32: Keep up the great work!!! https://t.co/FIAnl1hxwG

RT @anti_commie32: Keep up the great work!!! https://t.co/FIAnl1hxwG — Joseph Moran (@JMM7156) May 2, 2023 from Twitter https://twitter....