Live: Police negotiate with gunman after five people emerge from Lindt cafe during siege in Sydney's Martin Place

12/15/2014

Police are negotiating with an armed offender who has been holding an unknown number of people hostage at the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Sydney's Martin Place.

Three people emerged from the building about 4:00pm (AEDT) and they were followed by another two an hour later.

Hostages were earlier seen pressing a black flag with Arabic text against the cafe's windows.

Read the full story and follow our live blog for updates on the siege, which began about 9:40am (AEDT).

• Watch live developments from the scene on ABC News 24.

  by Luke Royes edited by Daniel Franklin 6:46 PM yesterday
• Key points:

  • An armed offender is holding an "undisclosed number" of hostages inside the Lindt cafe in central Sydney, police say
  • Almost seven hours into the siege, three people were seen running out of the cafe. An hour later another two emerged.
  • Lindt Australia executive says about 10 staff and up to 30 customers were inside, but police reject the number is that high.
  • Police have been in contact with the gunman, who instructed hostages to contact local media on his behalf
  • A black flag with white Arabic writing reading "There is no God but Allah" and "Mohammed is the messenger of God" was waved behind the hostages
  • The National Security Committee of Cabinet has met twice; Prime Minister Tony Abbott  described incident as "profoundly shocking".
  • Updates on road closures and public transport

  by Luke Royes edited by Daniel Franklin 7:21 PM yesterday
• 
  A little earlier, 7.30's Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop discussed the latest developments with host Leigh Sales

  by Daniel Franklin 4:49 AM

source

DUBLIN BATTLE BREWING AS MICROSOFT RESISTS US DEMANDS TO ACCESS EMAILS...

12/15/2014

Privacy is not dead: Microsoft lawyer prepares to take on US government 

Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, says people will only use technology they can trust and that the only way forward is either through stronger technology or better laws. Photograph: Ted S Warren/AP

Imagine this scenario. German police investigating a press leak descend on Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt. They serve a warrant to seize a bundle of private letters a US reporter is storing in a safe deposit box at a bank branch in Manhattan. The bank complies and orders the branch manager to open the reporter’s box and fax the private letters to the Stadtpolizei.

Uproar! The US would be outraged at the bypassing of bilateral agreements and flouting of its citizen’s rights. And yet this is exactly what the US government is ordering Microsoft to do, according to the software giant’s general counsel, Brad Smith.

After bruising revelations regarding the company’s working relations with the National Security Agency (NSA), Smith has emerged as one of the technology industry’s loudest voices for reform and greater openness.

Now he is spearheading Microsoft’s fight against US government demands for access to emails from a Microsoft customer which are currently sitting on a server in Dublin, Ireland, as part of a narcotics investigation. Earlier this year, a US court ruled that Microsoft should hand the data over. Microsoft declined to comply, voluntarily entering into contempt.

Last week Microsoft filed its appeal: “The power to embark on unilateral law enforcement incursions into a foreign sovereign country – directly or indirectly – has profound foreign policy consequences. Worse still, it threatens the privacy of US citizens,” the company said in court documents.

If Microsoft loses, Smith argues it could put all of our private digital information at risk as well as further damaging the standing and reputation of US tech firms still reeling from the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s leaks.

It is believed to be the first time a US company has fought the government against a domestic warrant for data held overseas and it is likely to prove one of the most important test cases to emerge since the NSA leaks. It is a case almost tailor-made for Smith. Microsoft’s top lawyer since 2002, he has a deep interest in the long history of government challenges to privacy – challenges he says have often been triggered by wars and by changes in technology.

Smith says the current debate, and Microsoft’s upcoming court case, were “historically inevitable”. “The pendulum swung for lots of reasons we can understand following 9/11. The pendulum always swings back, that’s one of the lessons of history,” he says.

Washington has often clamped down on personal liberty during times of war. Smith cites President John Adams’s introduction of the alien and sedition acts in the name of national security in 1798, during a “quasi-war” with France. The bills effectively disenfranchised voters who disagreed with Adams. One of the acts, the alien enemies act, was used by Franklin D Roosevelt to intern Japanese Americans during the second world war, another egregious example of government overreaction in the name of security.

Today’s debate differs from previous ones on two major points, Smith says. First, previous wars had defined endings. The “war on terror” appears without end.

 President Franklin Roosevelt used 18th century emergency legislation to intern Japanese Americans during the second world war, in an overreaction in the name of security. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

“The current challenges to the security and safety of people don’t have that defined ending,” he says. “By definition we are having to think about how we navigate through a more dangerous world. At the same time one really needs to think hard about how the balance should be struck between public safety and personal privacy.

“Both are not just important goals but important values for society. It’s not as if we can throw one aside for the other.”

The second major difference is technology. Before the internet, issues of privacy were largely national affairs. Now those borders are gone. There are about 3 billion connected devices today – including a billion PCs and 2 billion smartphones. By the end of this decade, Smith says there will be 50 billion devices connected to data centres, everything from smart watches and health bands to thermostats and fridges. All the information they collect will be very telling about us and will all be stored – like those emails in Dublin – in the cloud. How it is protected will be one of the big debates of the coming decade, he says.

History has led to starkly different attitudes in different countries. “You can’t help but be in Berlin without feeling the full force of German history and what that means for the German people,” says Smith. “In the same vein it has impacted the views of people in the United Kingdom and the United States.”

While the Germans reacted with fury to the NSA revelations, especially the news that the NSA spied on Chancellor Angela Merkel, the UK government has fought back. Robert Hannigan, newly installed GCHQ boss, recently castigated US tech firms for failing to cooperate enough with spy agencies, calling them “the command and control networks of choice” for terrorists.

“[There are] few countries where people have lived for more decades with the threat of domestic terrorism,” says Smith. “The UK hasn’t even had the same history as the US with the government overreaching and abusing its own power. The UK doesn’t have Watergate but it does have Bletchley Park.”

Hannigan’s comments followed similar criticisms from the FBI director, James Comey, who has charged that the increasing use of encryption aids criminals and terrorists and is leading us to a “a very, very dark place”.

“I understand the point but the focus falls short of what is going to lead any of us to a better path,” says Smith. “Fundamentally, technology companies are reacting to not just a business but a societal imperative. People will only use technology that they trust and given that that trust has been under pressure companies have to find ways to restore trust.”

The only ways to do that are through stronger technology or better laws, he says.

“If there are those in government concerned about stronger technology then we need to have a dialogue about better laws. The only thing I am certain will not get us anywhere is complaints about better technology and a resistance to better laws.”

In the absence of better laws, Smith says technology companies will continue to innovate and continue to encrypt data – unless they are stopped.

So far Smith has been disappointed by the lack of progress made by legislators. In November the US failed to pass the USA Freedom Act, a bill that would have curbed some aspects of surveillance but which Smith said would still have left major issues unaddressed. For example the US has yet to rule out hacking into the data centres of firms outside the US. “We believe we are entitled to constitutional protection from our own government wherever we happen to be,” Smith says.

Regarding the UK, he is concerned about the expansion of surveillance under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act. “I understand how that enhances public safety in Britain,” he says. “And I think you have to appreciate that. But on balance it creates more difficulties for creating an international regime where countries each have laws that they can follow and respect.”

If other governments follow the UK and US, Smith says, tech companies will be placed in the middle of an irresolvable issue. “One government will say you must go get this and another will say you must not hand it over,” he says. And tech companies are not in the position to solve this issue themselves, he says.

“When people suggest technology companies should go beyond what they are legally required to do, I feel what they are really asking technology companies to do is make decisions that the governments themselves haven’t been prepared to make. The better course is for governments to decide in the form of law what technology companies must do.”

The best news so far for the tech sector and privacy has come from the supreme court. In a sweeping June decision, the US’s highest court unanimously ruled that police must obtain a warrant to search the contents of cellphones seized from people they have arrested.

The so-called Riley decision shows that the supreme court understands how important technology has become in terms of storing people’s private information and reasserts the concept that “protection of privacy is a timeless value even amidst changing technology”, Smith says.

Despite some high-profile opinions, notably that of the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who infamously said privacy was dead, privacy is very much alive and well, says Smith. “The meaning of the term has evolved. It’s not about keeping something secret. It’s about continuing to control who you share information with and what they can do with it. That notion of privacy deserves legal protection.”

Microsoft’s own polling in various states and countries shows consumers agree with the supreme court that information stored in the cloud should have as much protection as information stored on paper. “So far, repeatedly 80% or more of the public embraces that principle,” he says. “The public gets it and if the public gets it then I think the courts will get it as well.”

Microsoft’s appeal is backed by Apple, AT&T, Cisco, Verizon and others, all of whom argue that a final decision in favour of the US government would create a “dramatic conflict with foreign data protection laws”. Germany has already stated that if the decision is upheld, it will not store data with US cloud service providers.

The film The Lives of Others concerned East German domestic surveillance. ‘You can’t help but be in Berlin without feeling the full force of German history and what that means for the German people,’ says Brad Smith. Photograph: PR

The Guardian and other news organisations are filing supporting briefs, arguing that if the company loses, the US government could come after news organisations by targeting emails and other information stored overseas.

Oral arguments are expected to begin in the spring. If Microsoft loses, Smith says companies will be forced to do more of what the government dislikes the most, in order to reassure customers. “It will force companies to look for more ways to encrypt data and not retain the keys. Partner with non-US companies so that non-US companies have the servers. None of which will be helpful to the US,” he says.

A win for the US will also encourage other governments to follow suit. “The US government cannot expect to have one model that it follows without anticipating that the rest of the world will follow that model,” Smith says. “And this is a model that encourages governments to reach into other territories. That does not seem like a sound approach to international stability or mutual respect in the 21st century.”

Smith sees more battles ahead as the world’s major governments are forced to rewrite rules written for another era. The Electronic Communications PrivacyAct, the act over which Microsoft and the US are clashing, was introduced in 1986 by Ronald Reagan. That same year, Smith brought his first computer to work. There was no Facebook, no Fitbit; Microsoft Word was three years old. Most people still used typewriters.

The intersection of technology and law was peripheral. Now it is central, and so important that Smith believes some form of international framework will have to be worked out. He is optimistic that it will come, despite international differences.

“It’s become so important to society that it has become a mainstream topic. It makes it even more important to think now about the values that are at stake because it affects us all in profound ways,” he says.

“Ultimately it’s the governments that must make the decisions but we in technology have a role to play in trying to ensure that the debate is well informed and that we think broadly about our responsibilities as well.”

source



hat tip: Matt Drudge

Obama's "favorite Middle-Eastern leader" rounds up journalists; Media chiefs held... Police Officers Detained...

12/15/2014

Staff members and supporters of Zaman newspaper shout slogans as editor-in-chief Ekrem Dumanli (C) is being arrested by counter-terror police at the newspaper headquarters in Istanbul on December 14, 2014 (AFP Photo/Ozan Kose)

Istanbul (AFP) - Turkish police on Sunday arrested the editor of Turkey's biggest-selling newspaper and 26 others in lightning raids on supporters of a US-based cleric who has become President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's top foe.

The operation was the most significant yet against supporters of Fethullah Gulen, an influential former ally of Erdogan whom the Turkish strongman accuses of running a parallel state from abroad.

At least 27 people were detained in raids across Turkey, including Ekrem Dumanli, the editor-in-chief of the Zaman daily newspaper which is closely linked to Gulen.

Those held include an executive of Samanyolu television, also seen as close to Gulen, as well as a TV director, producers, scriptwriters and some police officers.

Arrest warrants were issued for a total of 31 people, the official Anatolia news agency reported.

Anatolia said detainees were accused of a number of offences including "using intimidation and threats" to "form a gang to try and seize state sovereignty", "forgery" and "slander."

The European Union condemned the police action, saying it went "against the European values" that Turkey aspires to as it seeks membership in the bloc.

View gallery

A handout picture released by Zaman Daily shows exiled Turkish Muslim preacher Fethullah Gulen at hi …

In a statement, foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and enlargement commissioner Johannes Hahn said the raids were "incompatible with the freedom of media, which is a core principle of democracy."

US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Washington was "closely following" the developments.

"As Turkey's friend and ally, we urge the Turkish authorities to ensure their actions do not violate these core values and Turkey's own democratic foundations."

Clearly expecting the arrest of Dumanli, some 2,000 supporters and journalists gathered outside Zaman's offices on the outskirts of Istanbul, preventing police from entering.

But plain clothes officers returned a few hours later, detaining a defiant Dumanli, who was applauded as a hero as he was led away through the dense and angry crowd.

Amid dramatic scenes broadcast live on Turkish television, the crowd chanted slogans such as "The free press cannot be silenced" and "Turkey is proud of you."

View gallery

Ekrem Dumanli (C), editor-in-chief of the Zaman newspaper, waves to staff members while being arrest …

"Let those who have committed a crime be scared. We are not scared," Dumanli said.

- 'Shameful for Turkey' -

The crackdown came almost a year to the day after Erdogan's government was rocked by stunning corruption allegations that the authorities denied and blamed on Gulen.

The corruption probe, opened on December 17, 2013, saw the arrests of dozens of leading businessmen and political figures close to Erdogan, who was prime minister at the time.

The president, accused by critics of becoming increasingly authoritarian, managed to stall the investigation by sacking thousands of police and scores of judges and pushing through laws tightening state control over the judiciary and the Internet.

Erdogan warned Friday of a new blow against the "evil forces" of Gulen and said he would "pursue them (Gulen supporters) in their lairs".

View gallery

Staff members of Zaman newspaper hold placards reading "Free press can not be silenced" du …

"Whoever is beside them and behind them, we will bring down this network and bring it to account."

Pennsylvania-based Gulen, 73, is the spiritual leader of the powerful Hizmet (Service) movement, which controls media outlets, schools and cultural centres.

He was a key backer of Erdogan before falling out with him over the government's plans to shut down his schools.

Hidayet Karaca, the head of Samanyolu TV, called the raids "a shameful sight for Turkey", before he himself was detained.

"Sadly in 21st century Turkey, this is the treatment a media group with tens of television and radio stations, Internet media and magazines receives."

As in almost all previous raids -- which targeted mostly police officers suspected of backing Gulen -- the details of the swoop were leaked by a mysterious Twitter user named Fuat Avni before it was even carried out.

Last week Fuat Avni, believed to be a government official, warned his followers that police were set to detain some 400 people, including 150 journalists.

Late Saturday, he went on to publish the names of those journalists, some of whom were among those rounded up.

- 'This is a coup' -

Leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) Kemal Kilicdaroglu denounced the operation as "a coup" that "we cannot accept under any circumstances".

"The process that we are going through is not something faced in healthy democracies. This is a coup process," he told reporters, vowing to be on the side of the victims.

But Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu accused the Gulen movement of trying to seize control of "the bureaucracy".

"Today is a day of test. Everyone will pay for what they have done and their anti-democratic behaviour," he said.

Human Rights Watch Turkey researcher Emma Sinclair-Webb wrote on Twitter that the detentions look "like another attempt to crack down on critical media."

source


Hat tip: Matt Drudge

Democratic Congressman Accuses Peyton And Eli Manning Of Sexually Assaulting Their Wives

12/14/2014

Move over Joe Biden, there’s another gaffe-prone democrat in Washington that says even stupider sh*t. Tennessee Representative Steve Cohen recently put both of feet in his mouth at the same time when he suggested NFL superstar brothers Peyton and Eli Manning sexual assault their wives.

The story starts out with sexual assault allegations against Tennessee Titan defensive lineman Sammie Hill. TMZ caught up with Rep. Cohen and asked him what he thought about the allegations. It was weird that the Congressman had no idea who a prominent player on his home state team was, but the answer was about to get way more bizarre:

“I don’t keep up with football, except college football, except Eli Manning or Peyton Manning. And Eli and Peyton don’t do sexual assaults against people other than their wives,” responded Cohen.

What? Did he just say two of the biggest stars in football rape their wives? Equally as messed up was the fact that Cohen didn’t even realize what had just come out of his mouth. He moved on to the next question without so much as battling an eye.

At some point, Cohen’s camp realized that what he said was just terrible and tried to clarify things. Spokesman Ben Garmisa issued a statement reported by Mediate:

Congressman Cohen misspoke, abhors sexual violence of any kind, is a fan of both Manning brothers, and deeply regrets any confusion. His intention was simply to indicate that Eli and Peyton are in committed, monogamous marriages.

Speaking of monogamy, you may remember Steve Cohen as the Congressman that was busted tweeting “I love you” to a 24-year old model during last year’s State of the Union Address. Many called this “creep tweeting” but Cohen explained the woman was his secret daughter, a product of an affair with Frank Sinatra Jr’s ex-wife Cynthia White Sinatra. It turns out, after a paternity test, that this young woman was not actually Cohen’s daughter.

Maybe what Cohen said about the Manning brothers was a gaffe, or perhaps that’s just how this pervert thinks relationships between men and women go. Call it a Freudian slip from a predatory mind.

One thing is for sure, if a Republican Congressman had said this, it would not be treated as a gaffe. The hairy armpitted feminists of MSNBC and The Huffington Post would blow the trumpets of misogyny, accusing the statement of fostering the rape culture and offering it up as proof of the GOP’s war against women. Lucky for Cohen he’s a democrat.

source

Facebook Secret Busted Wide Open Two Victims Speak Out And You Could Be Next

12/14/2014

In the video below, you will hear the most terrifying stories of how the Government, due to information voluntarily handed over to them by Facebook, made the lives of two people a living hell. Make sure to pay attention at the very beginning where she talks about the upcoming privacy agreement at the beginning of 2015 in which we’ll all be agreeing, merely by using Facebook, to allow Facebook to hack into any or all of our devices with which we access the site. And they can and WILL turn anything they find suspicious over to the Government.

source

hat tip: Patriot NewsWire

Gun Club Offers Photo Ops With Firearms And Santa

12/14/2014

Finally, a story we can appreciate.

A Georgia gun club offered people the option to pose for a picture with Santa — while holding their favorite assault weapon.

The Sandy Springs Gun Club and Range let firearms enthusiasts pose with either an AK-47, an AR-15, or an FN-SCAR-17 while standing next to St. Nick.

There is no word yet about whether or not Santa Claus was wearing body armor.

“You don’t often get to pose with Santa with a gun so I thought it was a great opportunity to have one taken to send to my family and friends,” Daniel Jespersen, 25, of Atlanta, told FoxNews.com.

Yes, we don’t usually get that opportunity at our local mall.

Justin Hosp, 32, availed himself of the chance to pose with an AR-15. His 12-year-old daughter is in the picture as well.

“It was fun, I enjoyed it,” the girl said.

Who wouldn’t enjoy that?

Members of the gun club inspected, unloaded, and deactivated the guns for safety reasons. Also, nobody under the age of 18 was allowed to hold a gun while being photographed with Santa.

Did it cost money? Nope. In exchange for the photo, the gun club asked people to bring canned food that could be donated to a local food pantry.

Gun owners know what Christmas is all about.

source

Artist James Dupree fends off eminent domain effort by Philadelphia City Hall to build State-Subsidized grocery store in Food Desert

12/14/2014

By Andrew Staub | PA Independent

The Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority still wants to build a grocery store in the city’s Mantua neighborhood, but it won’t be taking James Dupree’s art studio to do it.

The PRA on Thursday relented on its quest to acquire the renowned Dupree’s studio via eminent domain, saying the legal costs resulting from Dupree’s appeal of condemnation proceedings made it “impossible” to continue the pursuit of his property.

GIVING UP: The Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority has abandoned plans to seize artist James Dupree’s studio through eminent domain.

Dupree wasn’t immediately available for comment, but Melinda Haring, activism manager for the Institute for Justice, called it an “enormous victory.” Dupree had partnered with the institute to bring awareness to his situation.

“Dupree lost many years of his work and life fighting this illegal and unconstitutional land grab,” Haring said in a written statement. “James’ victory puts the City of Philadelphia on notice: The city cannot take private property for private development ever again.”

The artist’s battle against the PRA began two years ago, when the authority used eminent domain to condemn the three-lot property James bought in 2005. The plan was to clear the area for a state-subsidized grocery store the PRA contended was necessary to end the neighborhood’s run as a “food desert.”

In a statement announcing the end of condemnation proceedings, PRA Executive Director Brian Abernathy said Dupree’s studio was a “key parcel” in meeting that goal.

“While we have explored the potential of building around Mr. Dupree’s property, a viable project under these conditions is not possible,” Abernathy wrote. “In short, the inability to acquire Mr. Dupree’s property puts the prospect of bringing fresh food to this community at serious risk.”

Dupree’s situation drew national attention, and he chronicled the case on his website, where he described how he transformed the Haverford Avenue property into the art studio it is today.

“I invested everything I own into this property,” Dupree once said in an Institute for Justice op-ed piece posted on Forbes.com.

So when the PRA tried to take his studio, he fought back. He painted a mural on his building with a stern warning to the PRA: “HANDS OFF My Business.”

On Thursday, the PRA relented on its land grab.

“While I believe PRA has done all we could to find a fair solution with Mr. Dupree — offering independent appraisals of his property, finding and offering other potential locations for his studio, and payment of all relocation costs — I know that the emotional attachment to property is real and deep,” Abernathy wrote. “I am disappointed that Mr. Dupree and PRA could not reach a resolution to this issue but respect his passion.”

source