http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/press-fear-obama-private-swearing-in-84776.html?hp=t1_3
( Nothing to see here folks , move along... )
Press fear Obama private swearing in
The White House Correspondents Association is strongly urging the Obama administration to allow press access to the president’s official swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, following indications from inauguration committee officials that the event could potentially be closed to the press.
“Mindful of the historic nature of this occasion, we expect the White House will continue the long tradition of opening the President’s official swearing-in to full press access, and we as an organization are looking forward to working with the administration to make that happen,” Ed Henry, the Fox News correspondent and president of the White House Correspondents Association, said in a statement.
Because inauguration day falls on a Sunday in 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts will officially administer the official oath of office in a private ceremony that day. The public inauguration on the Capitol Building’s West Front — at which Roberts will administer a second, symbolic oath of office — will take place the next day.
In early meetings with the inaugural committee, officials privately indicated to reporters that the Jan. 20 event could be closed to reporters and cameras, with an official photograph supplied to press by White House photographer Pete Souza, sources familiar with the meeting told POLITICO.
Fears of such a scenario were reignited this week when the Presidential Inauguration Committee sent out a press release referring to a “private” inauguration.
Both the White House and the PIC note that “private” simply means the event is not open to the public and that press arrangements have not been formalized.
”There is no truth to any rumors that decisions have been made about media access to this year’s Inaugural events,” Rachel Racusen, a spokesperson for the PIC, told POLITICO. “The 2013 Presidential Inaugural Committee announced its launch yesterday and is just beginning its planning. Any announcements about media access and credentials will be made in the coming weeks.”
The White House press corps acknowledges that nothing is set in stone. But even the possibility of a closed-press inauguration has stirred up immense frustration among the White House press corps, who note that past Sunday inaugurations were open to press.
“Call me shell-shocked. I’m stunned that this is even an issue; it boggles the mind,” NBC News White House correspondent Chuck Todd told POLITICO. “This is not their oath, this is the constitutional oath. It’s not for them. It’s for the public, the citizens of the United Sates. It just boggles the mind — How is this even a debate?”
Minutes from this week’s WHCA meeting noted “strong sentiment that the entire press pool must witness the moment.”
“We are urging the White House to reconsider any preliminary plans they have at the moment to keep this as a closed event,” C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully told POLITICO. “This is a historic event and it should be chronicled by news organizations. At a minimum, it should be a pooled event.”
Continue Reading
The last time a president was inaugurated on a Sunday was in 1985. Reagan’s White House allowed complete news coverage of the private ceremony, including three reporters, three still photographers, and one network television pool camera, according to a Los Angeles Times report from the time. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN carried live broadcasts of the event.
President Obama’s “second inauguration” in 2009 was not so public. Though Jan. 20 did not fall on a Sunday four years ago, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and President Obama stumbled through the public swearing-in and had to hold a second, private swearing-in the following day. White House aides initially told reporters there would be no second swearing-in, but changed their mind at the last minute. Only four reporters were allowed to attend. Rather than let photographers or television cameras in, the White House provided a photo from the White House photographer.
Despite promising to be the most transparent administration in history, full press access was not provided at the dawn of Obama’s first term.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to inauguration committee officials as White House aides.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/6/3734612/nationwide-hack-personal-information-ssn-birthdate
Nationwide Mutual hack leaves 1.1 million Americans' information exposed
More details are coming out about a massive October 3rd data breach at Nationwide Mutual Insurance. The company reported to the North Carolina Attorney General that as many as 1.1 million Americans’ personal information may have been exposed, revealed Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. Nationwide reported the breach to police and disclosed it to the public almost immediately in October, but this is the first time we've heard the full scope of the intrusion. The attack is believed to have originated overseas, and according to the insurer, resulted in the theft of names, birth dates, social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers. While Nationwide attempts to reassure customers that it does not “have any reason to believe any information stolen in the attack has ben misused,” it doesn't take much imagination to picture the kind of risk for fraud a data set of this size could generate. In order to lower that risk, the company is extending a Credit Watch service and identity theft insurance to those affected.
Since the data comes from customers and others asking for insurance quotes, credit card numbers were not part of the stolen information, unlike the victims of last year's much larger PlayStation Network hack. But the effects of these kinds of data breaches are nevertheless far-reaching, with financial fraud being only the most immediate risk. As we reported in October, personal data can be used to de-anonymize many other kinds of information, ranging from medical records to personal web browsing histories.
and .......
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/12/health-info-collected-to-protect-the-president-2536968.html
Health Info Collected To “Protect The President”
Thursday, December 6, 2012 7:52
6 December 2012: Whether you are at the doctor’s office, hospital, or clinic awaiting treatment for you or your loved one, how many of you read the fine print on those multi-page legal notices pertaining to privacy practices? I suspect not many, yet you sign them anyway, especially when you are at your most vulnerable. But, have you read them recently?
A caller to The Hagmann & Hagmann Report said that she took her daughter to a medical facility for treatment of an illness on December 4, 2012. Among the forms she was handed was a two-page privacy notice that she was given pursuant to state and federal law. Upon arriving back home and after things settled down, she decided to review the paperwork she received from the medical facility – despite not having a magnifying glass that would have helped get through the tiny, 8 point font.
Buried in the middle of page two of this finely typed legal notice oriented in landscape format, located between the subheadings of “military” and “inmates” is an interesting addition to at least one hospital’s privacy disclosure statement. Under the heading of “National Security,” the notice states that the treating medical facility may disclose your health information to federal officials “in order to protect the President, other officials or foreign heads of state.”
Please stop here and carefully consider that statement. It is critical to point out that this statement is an addition to the typical national security warning seemingly ubiquitous in post 9-11 disclosure statements in America. It specifically identifies the President [of the United States], other officials or foreign heads of state. Again, please contemplate the meaning of these words, their intent and the context in which they are written.
Changes of terminology
After requesting and receiving a copy of the privacy notice from this caller, I noted that the document contained an effective date of April 14, 2003. I contacted the medical facility for information about their privacy policy and specifically to determine if the last changes made to the privacy notice were indeed eight years ago.
After being transferred to four different departments, I ended up talking to a representative of the facility’s legal department. A representative from that department originally provided her name and appeared willing to talk about their written privacy policy. After confirming that we were both looking at the same document, I asked when the privacy policy was last updated. She stated that the policy is constantly being reviewed and updated to conform to newly enacted federal and state laws. She stated that while 2003 was printed on the disclosure, that does not mean it has not been changed or updated since that date.
When asked when the last update was made to that document, she stated that she would have to research the matter to identify the exact date and what changes were made, although stated that privacy notice was updated at least once this year, and perhaps twice.
“I’d rather not say”
At this point, I drew her attention to the section in question, to the specific line “in order to protect the President, other officials or foreign heads of state.” I questioned whether this was a recent addition or if the verbiage was contained in the original document. I also asked if this statement was added in anticipation of the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act.
At this point, she again asked me the name of the publication I represent and the reason for my question. Clearly, she was growing increasingly uncomfortable with my questions, and finally stated that before providing any additional information, she would have to check with another department head. In the interim, however, she advised me that I did not have her consent to use her name or title in any public venue. When pressed whether this one sentence was a recent addition and assured that she would not be publicly cited, her response was simply “I’d rather not say.” At that point, my inquiry was promptly terminated.
Following this interview, I contacted a source at a local medical facility I’ve known for over two decades. When asked about this sentence, this source confirmed that in their case, which is likely to be the case on a national level, major changes to their privacy notice were made in early 2012. The terminology was identical, suggesting that the changes were federal in origin.
Protection from the informed?
Medical facilities and the information about individuals they compile is extremely personal and extensive. Many “privileges” enjoyed by Americans such as gun ownership and concealed carrying of a firearm, even driving and employment are contingent upon the content of the information contained in these records. The policies have existed for decades without the need for specific reference to perceived threats to one man or office, other government officials and even foreign leaders. The addition of this specific threat identification in addition to the standard wording serves a specific purpose. To the majority of people the wording will raise no concern and certainly no alarm. To others watching what is taking place they will, as they should. To those who will argue that they have nothing to hide so they have no reason to fear, think again.
The post Health info collected to “protect the President” appeared first on Northeast Intelligence Network.
and.....
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/12/new-drones-can-fly-into-your-house-darpa-unveils-new-super-snoop-machine-2502836.html
New Drones Can Fly Into Your House! DARPA Unveils New Super-Snoop Machine
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 20:21
No comments:
Post a Comment