Tag Archives: chairman

NSA Executive Leaked After Official Reporting Process Failed Him | Threat Level | Wired.com

A former NSA executive who is fighting government charges of leaking classified information was part of a group that pursued several sanctioned paths to report concerns about an agency spy program, but was repeatedly frustrated by the government’s inaction, according to a report Wednesday. Thomas Drake, now reduced to working at a Washington, D.C.-area Apple store while awaiting his trial, first notified his superiors at the National Security Agency, then looked to Congress to address his concerns, and finally worked with a group that went to the Defense Department’s inspector general, according to The Washington Post. When all of these avenues failed to net results, he took his information to a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. Drake now faces a maximum sentence of 35 years in prison if convicted of mishandling classified information and obstructing justice. Drake’s information involved a data-mining program called ThinThread that, after the Sept. 11 attacks, was going to be replaced by a more expensive, less efficient and less privacy-friendly program called Trailblazer. When he expressed concerns that the new program would ignore constitutional safeguards around wiretapping, he was reportedly rebuffed by his superiors. “He tried to have his concerns heard and nobody really wanted to listen,” attorney Nina Ginsberg, who is representing a former Capitol Hill staffer but is not representing Drake, told the Post. Drake began working for the NSA in 1989 as a contractor. His job was to evaluate software programs for the agency. In 2001, on the morning of Sept. 11 to be exact, he began a new job as a senior executive at the NSA overseeing the office of change leadership and communications, the Post says. ThinThread was developed for the NSA in the ’90s to mine massive amounts of digital data collected by the agency and find patterns. One of the existing program’s key features was a privacy component that anonymized collected data through encryption. The identifying information would only be decrypted if authorities gained sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant. Although the mere collection of domestic data was still illegal without a warrant, Drake apparently approved of the product as long as the anonymization feature was in place. But after Sept. 11, NSA director Michael Hayden opted instead for the $1.2 billion Trailblazer program, which was believed to have more robust capability to handle larger volumes of data, but which had none of the privacy safeguards present in ThinThread. Three of Drake’s superiors now say that he never mentioned his concerns about constitutional safeguards to them, but career NSA employees back Drake’s story, according to the paper. They took their concerns to congressional leaders and staffers, including Diane Roark, a Republican staff member of the House Intelligence Committee. Roark contacted Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who was responsible for appointing judges to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — the court that oversees requests for national security surveillance warrants. But Rehnquist apparently was a dead end. Roark also had no luck with her boss, House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Florida). Instead of performing his congressional oversight duty, Goss simply sent her along to NSA chief Hayden, who told her: “We’re proud of what we’re doing and how we’re doing it.” That’s when Roark and former NSA employees who sided with Drake took their concerns to the Defense Department’s inspector general. They reported that the NSA had shelved ThinThread in favor of a program that cost 10 times as much and was less effective. An administrative investigation was spawned by their complaint, as well as two criminal fraud investigations. The inspector general’s report was completed in December 2004 but was classified and led to no action. It was Roark who suggested Drake contact a reporter at that point. A month later, in December 2005, The New York Times reported its groundbreaking story disclosing that the NSA had been spying on Americans, based on information from anonymous sources. Drake decided he should come forward with his information as well. He contacted Siobhan Gorman at The Baltimore Sun, using Hushmail, an encrypted e-mail service. They communicated for a year without Drake identifying himself, before they finally met in person. Drake allegedly provided Gorman with scans of classified documents, from which she wrote an article questioning the NSA’s replacement of ThinThread with Trailblazer and its abandonment of privacy safeguards. Drake later told New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that the story was actually much more significant than what The Baltimore Sun reported. Drake’s attorney, a public defender, says the government’s allegations against his client are factually wrong and miss important principles suggested by the case. “Throughout, Tom Drake has tried as best he could to do the right thing in service of his country,” Jim Wyda told the Post. “His motives in this important matter are completely pure.” added by: toyotabedzrock

Proof That The TEA Party Is Not Racist And Doesn’t Tolerate Racists

Proof That The TEA Party Is Not Racist And Doesn't Tolerate Racists added by: CarlosBobthe3rd

Obama Adminstration’s Ridiculous Pornography Trial Violates Constitution & Individual Rights

Click here for full article! http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/ridiculous-pornography-trial-violates-cons… The federal trial of pornographer John Stagliano began last week. Libertarian National Committee Chairman Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today: “The Obama Administration's prosecution of John Stagliano is a travesty. “As Reason magazine's Richard Abowitz wrote, 'The case against Stagliano concerns the selling of movies performed by consenting adults to entertain adult DVD viewers who have chosen to watch these films. In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen.' “Many Americans find it far more obscene that Democrats and Republicans are piling trillions of dollars of debt on our children and gr…….. …………”It is worth noting that this case was not initiated by citizen complaints. FBI agents just purchased the materials, watched them, and then brought charges. It's clear that the FBI budget needs to be cut. “Apparently President Obama's Justice Department is no different than former President Bush's when it comes to prosecuting speech. Obama has sustained the 'Obscene Prosecution Task Force,' which was created by the Bush Administration in 2005.” The Libertarian Party's platform states, “We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.”….. http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/ridiculous-pornography-trial-violates-cons… added by: shanklinmike

MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan

So is President Obama more conservative than the late Ronald Reagan? MSNBC substitute anchor Cenk Uygur thinks so. Filling in yesterday for Dylan Ratigan on his 4 p.m. show, Uygur moderated a segment based on the preposition that President Obama’s policies have actually been more conservative than those of President Reagan. “That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard,” former Reagan White House political director Frank Donatelli said of the claims. “It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything,” he added. Uygur is a host of ” The Young Turks ,” a left-wing internet political podcast. In fact, both his guests disagreed with him, but the liberal radio show host wouldn’t budge. He provided the following as proof: – President Reagan pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens, while President Obama wants to toughen-up border security. – President Reagan negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions (in 1985, with Mikhail Gorbachev). – President Reagan decided to “cut and run” in the Middle East when troops in Lebanon were under attack. President Obama, on the other hand, called for a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. – President Obama refused to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. President Reagan, however, raised taxes every year of his Presidency after 1981. – President Reagan hosted an openly gay couple at the White house overnight. Uygur, taken aback at the challenge to the accuracy of his claims, wouldn’t let Donatelli get too many words in during the remainder of the segment. Uygur then turned to MSNBC political commentator David Weigel, who confessed that his own views on the matter leaned more toward those of Donatelli. “By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President,” Weigel stated. “But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to,” he added. “[Obama] is not a conservative, come on,” he countered Uygur. The guest host also opposed Weigel on whether the American populace is generally center-right or center-left.Weigel admitted that America is center-right overall, while Uygur argued that polls show America as a center-left country. “This is a — at least in rhetoric — a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like change,” Weigel stated. “This is not a center-right country,” Uygur countered. “You look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. Perhaps Uygur missed this poll . “I totally disagree with both of you,” Uygur wrapped up the segment, thus disagreeing with both of his guests from both sides of the political spectrum. The transcript of the segment, which aired on July 6 at 4:33 p.m. EDT, is as follows: THE DYLAN RATIGAN SHOW 7/6/10 4:33 p.m.-4:43 p.m. EDT (Video Clip) RONALD REAGAN: I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. BARACK OBAMA: And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. (End Clip) CENK UYGUR, MSNBC NEWS ANCHOR: Yes, you heard that right. Conservative hero President Ronald Reagan pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants, while our Democratic President calls for a border crackdown. Welcome back, I’m Cenk Uygur in for Dylan Ratigan. The immigration debate, just one reason Obama-Reagan comparisons are abounding right now. We’re breaking it down. Siena College out with its new ranking of the Presidents. Historians put our current President at 15th, with the Gipper ranked 18th. That is going to drive conservatives crazy, but maybe it shouldn’t. So time for a little pop quiz we’re calling “Who’s more conservative?” I’ll give you the policy decision, you decide whether it was President Obama’s or President Reagan’s. We start with foreign policy. Which president negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions? Was it President Obama, or President Reagan?  If you said President Obama, that is incorrect, though he says he’s open to it at some point. (Clip of CNN 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate) Question: Would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea? CNN Debate Moderator: Senator Obama? SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I would. (End Clip) UYGUR: Republican hawk Ronald Reagan actually did it in March, 1985. At the height of the Cold War, Reagan invited newly-appointed Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the “Evil Empire,” for a summit in Geneva without preconditions. You will recall President Reagan’s administration was also responsible for trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair. That would be negotiating with terrorists, literally. Next, which President is famous for his decision to “cut and run” when our troops were attacked in the Middle East? Yep, that would be President Reagan. He withdrew immediately from Lebanon in 1983 after Hezbollah murdered 243 U.S. servicemen in Beirut. Contrast that decision with President Obama’s 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. Next, the fiscal policy. Which president refused to raise taxes for anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars. Yeah, that would be President Obama. On the other hand, and counter to Reaganomics, President Reagan, after initially lowering taxes, raised them nearly every year after 1981, with four significant tax increases. Finally, which President was the first to host an openly-gay couple at the White House for an overnight stay? Well that’s got to be Obama, right? Nope, that would be family-values icon Ronald Reagan. So which President is the real conservative here? Joining us now is David Weigel, politcal reporter and MSNBC contributor, and Frank Donatelli, former White House political director for President Ronald Reagan, and most recently, the chairman of GOPAC. So let me start with you, Frank. Those sound like interesting comparisons. Is there some chance that Obama is actually more conservative than Reagan? FRANK DONATELLI: Well I’m glad the MSNBC interns had something to do for the last couple of weeks. Those are the – that’s the silliest thing that I’ve ever heard. The fact is, that – UYGUR: Which part is untrue? If you say it’s silly, which part is untrue? DONATELLI: It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything. UYGUR: So all of that is true, let’s start with that, all of that is true, right? DONATELLI: It’s not all true – UYGUR: Really? Which part is not true? DONATELLI: Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev, but at the same time he built up our armed forces. So to say that he negotiated with Gorbachev without preconditions is silly. It was part of an integrated strategy. It was part – UYGUR: Not it’s not silly, it’s absolutely correct. It’s absolutely correct. Furthermore, Obama has also increased Pentagon spending, and he did a surge in Afghanistan when Reagan ran from Lebanon. That’s got to be true, right? DONATELLI: Not as a part of GDP. Reagan wanted to cut government, he wanted to make government smaller, he wanted to make the private sector stronger. UYGUR: He wanted to. Did he? DONATELLI: Yes. Absolutely. UYGUR: Really? The deficit went up tremendously under Reagan, from 700 billion to 3 trillion. DONATELLI: And some of the taxes went down — [the deficit] wasn’t a trillion dollars every year like Obama’s. UYGUR: No, that’s actually Bush’s, but – DONATELLI: And he won the Cold War, too. Reagan won the Cold War. What did Obama win? Obama hasn’t won anything. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Reagan single-handedly won the Cold War. DONATELLI: [Obama] hasn’t created any jobs. 10 percent unemployment. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Right. I know Reagan won the Cold War single-handedly, nobody had anything else to do with it. DONATELLI: With a lot of other people, including Republicans and Democrats. UYGUR: Let me go to David. David, is it unfair to Obama to say he’s more conservative than Reagan is? Have we stated anything wrong on that count? DAVID WEIGEL: Well I’m going to come closer to Frank than you might expect here. By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President. We remember in the Nevada caucus, in the run-up to that, he gave an interview saying Reagan had been a transformative President, Bill Clinton hadn’t. He was going to be a transformative President. He said liberals had never had someone like this, and then he ran for President saying, as you pointed out, he wasn’t going to raise taxes on anybody. But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to, whereas Reagan, apart from the couple reversals early on, you know after ____ when he had to raise taxes again, with amnesty, he was always moving the debate further to the right. I think Obama ran more conservative than he really has been, and had been dealt more reversals as a liberal than Regan was dealt as a conservative. Now you brought up the deficit, that’s true. Regan had the highest deficits since we had since World War II. Obama’s had much higher deficits. And he’s much more apologetic about the reasons he did. Conservatives are still able and willing to say that taxes were lower, that government shrank in some ways. If they can’t defend it at every level, Democrats can’t really defend the way they’ve governed based on the way they ran on. It’s fun to compare a couple of these different, these different issues, and certainly Obama deserves a bit more credit on foreign policy and immigration, if not attacking the very traditions with which the Republican was founded. But he’s not a conservative, come on. UYGUR: No, not come on. You make a good point in that Regan pushed the spectrum further to the right. I hear you on that. But the flip side is the spectrum has already moved, and it’s not like Obama is pushing it back to the left. So I mean, since the spectrum has moved so much, let me ask of you a follow-up question. At this point, when Reagan did it, I don’t know, was it conservative to do amnesty? Now, you know, they’d go ballistic if Obama did amnesty for illegal immigrants and that’s it. Wouldn’t they? WEIGEL: Yeah, I mean, I’d like to see Frank’s answer to that. Because this is something that conservatives wrestle with, explaining why in the year 2010, we’ve actually got better border control than we had two years ago, why this is unthinkable. And I guess there’s space to say – it’s unfair to say that every single thing Obama does is antithetical to liberty. You know, his healthcare plan was not the healthcare plan liberals wanted. It was a variation of the plan Republicans proposed in 1994 as a compromise. So yeah, he’s adapted to a spectrum that’s been shifted to the right. But he’s trying to govern as liberal as possible, and not doing a great job of it, as far as liberals are concerned. UYGUR: I gotta be honest with you, I don’t agree with either one of you. I don’t think he’s being as liberal as he can at all. You know, they are already calling him a socialist, why not actually do the public option, let alone single payer health care? But David asked me a good question. Frank, let me ask you. I think the spectrum has moved. Do you agree that Reagan did amnesty – what now conservatives think is unthinkable? And do you agree that he negotiated with terrorists, which now Republicans think is unthinkable? Didn’t he do those, what you would characterize as very liberal, policy positions? DONATELLI: In 1986, the problem of integration – of immigration – was not nearly what it is in 2010. UYGUR: So it was okay to do amnesty? DONATELLI: The estimates were we had 3 million illegals living in the United States. We now have between 10 and 20 million. So the idea of amnesty didn’t work in 1986, and it’s not going to work in 2010. We need border security, and then we can move onto the other issues. Again, I think the seminal point to be made here is that at every opportunity, Ronald Reagan tried to knock down the size of the federal government. He said in his inaugural address in 1981, government is the problem, it is not the solution. Barack Obama, in just 16 months, has governed in the opposite direction. He believes in making government bigger. UYGUR: I think that, Dave, you say that he tried to make government smaller. He failed utterly then. And David said Obama tried to be liberal. Well, look at the record. It appears he failed. I mean, if Regan had – a final question for you, David. If Reagan had come in and said “I’m going to give the drug companies an absolute monopoly. They get a 12-year patent, nobody gets to import any drugs, and the government can’t even negotiate with them – that would have never worked. That would have been far too right-wing, wouldn’t it have? And now Obama does it, and nobody blinks. WEIGEL: Oh, I think a lot of people blinked. I think a lot of protesters on the right and a lot of liberals on the left blinked about it. No, the point is he’s had to talk more conservative, because Republicans are right. This is a – at least in rhetoric – a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like rapid change. So Obama’s been more hamstrung. But the debate you’re trying to start, I think, is helpful, because it’s not helpful when we pretend that everything Obama does comes not from liberals trying to adapt with a pretty center-right country we’ve got, and are instead trying to pull us back to the progressive, Saul Alinsky socialist tradition. In reality, Obama I think, is a pretty liberal guy who’s operating within these contours, and making a lot of compromises, the way that Ronald Reagan did. But we get completely off track both times, it’s good to take it off track into a different direction like this. UYGUR: Alright, well that was fun, because I totally disagree with both of you. This is not a center-right country, you look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. The problem is, our politicians tell us they’re going to vote in that direction, and they don’t. And yes, Obama was elected to change the contours. That’s exactly the problem, David. He said “I’m going to bring you change,” and then what did he bring us? He brought us policies that, on the record, that neither one of you can dispute, that are more conservative than Ronald Reagan’s. But it was a fun conversation, and David and Frank, thank you for both coming on here.

Go here to read the rest:
MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan

Al Gore’s Current TV: Worth Saving

____ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65O0HA20100625 Firstly, reading the comments at this link I can't help but wonder how many people are paid to go to sites with Al Gore articles and trash the man just for the hell of it. The immature political ranting is just too obvious. Anyway, as someone who has been participating on Current TV and Current.com since its first day(s) I have to honestly state that I am a bit disappointed with where it has gone the past couple of years. It appears the dilemma is one that Mr. Gore spoke about in his book, The Assault On Reason and it also appears his station has turned into the very model he used in the book illustrating what is wrong with the media which was not his original vision, and that is sad because it was/is a wonderful innovative vision. By hiring people from MTV however, what do you expect that Current will be turned into? But again, that also goes back to what makes money these days in order to stay afloat and it would seem that in order to do that you have to sacrifice quality because the predominant theory is that the American populace on the whole does not care about quality they care about entertainment, which actually proves the premise of Mr. Gore's book quite sadly and ironcially. However, I do not believe that is entirely true. When Current first came to be the material was fresh because it was for the most part viewer created content made by younger filmmakers looking for a way to be known and it was judged by participants who actually got to see their work firsthand and vote on it to be seen on tv. I think it was what helped grow this station and why the Emmy sits on your mantle. Combining tv and Internet in this fashion is truly innovative and unlike even what You Tube offers, and I was excited to be a part of it at that time. But unfortunately it is not the kind of material advertisers and sponsors which a station needs to create revenue to compete in the marketplace can use to build profits on longterm -or so they think. And of course, the competition from Internet outlets like You Tube severely cut into the staying power of that concept as the Internet has become a predominant media, even though it is said that TV will always remain the predominant media outlet. That may or may not be true but speaking for myself, tv is not my predominant media and I am not even within the demographic Current sought to appeal to. In my view, take away reality tv shows today and you lose viewers because I don't think many people watch tv these days because they think the shows are good. They watch it (1) out of habit (2) to be voyeuristic and escapist, hence the popularity of “reality” TV that at times is far from it and (3) to look for shows that educate and inform… Current could be the station people watch because they want to do so and because they find that information and education because I believe that is what people really want, which is why features like Vanguard should be expanded on by allowing viewers to be the reporters as well and that market and demographic sought more aggressively instead of always trying to appeal to the “entertainment tonight” mentality. I have to also state honestly that I think Mr. Gore keeping his distance from the station may have hurt it. He was part of the conversations in the beginning and it drew in viewers and participants and made people see he cared about where this station was going. I think a more hands on approach by Mr. Gore is now required with a revival of the viewer created content balanced with less “popular” entertainment. So my message to Al is this: You are the Chairman, not someone from MTV, and not those who are your detractors who seek to silence you and your vision. You have the power to bring this station/website to the vision you had when you first crafted this concept with Mr. Hyatt. As someone who has been here from day one, I strongly suggest you do this: Fire the MTV clones and bring the people here who want to help you see this station be a success and listen to those who are already here who wish that as well. There are also many bright, innovative, creative young minds out here making good film and tackling important issues. You can search them out and let them help mold a station of the future. Viewer created content and the feedback from it are the core of the “agora” you spoke of when this station was born. Your passion and vision about this was why I originally came here, and why I stay. It is unfortunate that the mentality of the average TV watcher isn't in tune with your vision. However, many of us are ( more than you know) and those of like mind will help you change direction and in the course of it, change the concept of how tv/Internet interaction can educate and empower instead of just being a habit or a babysitter. Please let us. I hope you will. Current is too innovative a concept to just give it up to the trappings of mainstream media. added by: JanforGore

Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker on Sunday said that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele “is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black.”  Chatting with ABC’s Jake Tapper during the Roundtable segment of today’s “This Week” about Steele’s recent remarks concerning Afghanistan, Tucker went even further with what many would consider overt racism.  “The irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Cynthia, you once called, let me underline “You” once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad. What’s your take on this? CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason. A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos. So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy. If this were said about a black Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, or any high-ranking black Democrat, the media, the NAACP, and the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be up in arms demanding that person’s resignation. But because Steele is a black Republican, this kind of talk is completely acceptable. In fact, nobody on the panel including the host even batted an eye when Tucker made these disgusting remarks. Yet there’s a potentially even more striking hypocrisy here: didn’t Tucker with her accusation admit that some incompetent black people are hired exclusively because of the color of their skin, and they don’t get fired for exactly the same reason? As such, wasn’t Tucker accidentally making a case AGAINST affirmative action?  Somehow you imagine she missed this while she was eviscerating Steele on national television. 

Continue reading here:
Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

EPA blocked ships from cleaning Oil Spill

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Ciara Says It ‘Feels Really Good’ To Get Andre 3000 On ‘Ride’ Remix

‘He is, from what I understand, very selective and … protective of his creativity,’ she tells MTV News. By Mawuse Ziegbe Ciara in “Ride” Photo: Jive Ciara has found a way to make her sexy single “Ride” even hotter: a collaboration with Andre 3000, one of the most sought-after MCs in the game. CiCi has recruited the Outkast rapper for a remix of “Ride,” which also features fellow ATLien Ludacris. But the diva didn’t land the collaboration alone; she brought in some music-industry bigwigs to help her out. “My team actually kind of helped put that together. My A&R [rep] Mark [Pitts] and [RCA/Jive Label Group Chairman and CEO] Barry Weiss, they kinda worked it out,” Ciara told MTV News about getting the MC, who is known for being selective when it comes to doling out features. “It was just a really cool thing for Dre to respond back and say he wanted to get on the record.” Ciara also revealed that the remix is not the first time she and the star tried to work together. “When I was doing [2006’s] Evolution, I wanted him to do something with me, and we never got to do anything,” Ciara said. “It’s just really great timing now that we get to do something.” Ciara followers are used to hearing the singer rock with stars who rep the A, like Luda and Young Jeezy, but CiCi said fans are getting something fresh with the 3000 collabo. “My fans are getting an unexpected treat with it. He is, from what I understand, very selective and … protective of his creativity, so it just feels really good to be able to rock with him,” Ciara said. There isn’t yet a release date for her next album, Basic Instinct, but the star said fans can look out for it later this year. “I’m really, like, 95 percent done right now with the record,” Ciara said. “You’re gonna be able to dance nonstop.” Are you excited to hear Ciara’s collabo with Andre 3000? Let us know in the comments! Related Artists Ciara Andre 3000

See original here:
Ciara Says It ‘Feels Really Good’ To Get Andre 3000 On ‘Ride’ Remix

Senators propose granting president power to shut down Internet in times of crisis

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet. The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined. That emergency authority would allow the federal government to “preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people,” Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats. Because there are few limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition. TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about “unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach” and “the potential for absolute power.” And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems.” The idea of an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites. On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said “I commend” the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that “we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources.” Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also “relies on” the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. “information infrastructure” would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security. The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to “conduct surveillance” of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized. Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies–cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.” A new cybersecurity bureaucracy Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including “no less” than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.) The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the “security status” of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide “situational awareness of the security status” of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm. Selected private companies would be required to participate in “information sharing” with the Feds. They must “certify in writing to the director” of the NCCC whether they have “developed and implemented” federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been “approved by the director.” The NCCC director can “issue an order” in cases of noncompliance. The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. “This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction,” says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker.” To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalizing offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable. If there's an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the president has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab. Another sweetener: A new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardize their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products. Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticizing the Lieberman bill, calling it a “very important piece of legislation.” McAfee is paying attention to “a number of provisions of the bill that could use work,” Gann said, and “we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions.” added by: samantha420

Video: Bernanke Says There’s ‘Nothing on the Table at this Point’ to Tackle Fiscal Crisis

While appearing before Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was asked by newly-elected Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii) whether or not the federal government has a plan to tackle the continuing financial crisis. Check out his answer: Make sure you visit this post at the Eyeblast blog for more details and discussion on this video.

See more here:
Video: Bernanke Says There’s ‘Nothing on the Table at this Point’ to Tackle Fiscal Crisis