Colombia’s Chamber of Representatives has approved a bill that would legalize the cultivation of drugs that grow as plants, bringing to fruition the start of more legislative drug reform efforts to come, as promised by South American leaders during the recent Summit of the Americas.

Colombia’s drug crop legalization bill would make growing marijuana, opium, coca and poppies legal, but drug trafficking, including sales, would remain a severe crime, according to Colombia Reports.

The U.S. is a strong ally of Colombia’s and the Obama administration has provided military support to the country, even going so far as to station U.S. soldiers and drone aircraft at Colombian military bases, ostensibly to help combat drug trafficking networks. The country has historically been a key U.S. asset in the region, so much that they’ve even accepted prior U.S. administrations sending aircraft over Colombian poppy and coca fields to spray the indigenous population with herbicide.

CONTINUED at The Raw Story.

Common sense dictates that an IP address is just a number associated with a connection, and not a human being. Copyright crusaders aren’t exactly known for loads of common sense and rationality. Thankfully, a New York judge has ruled that an IP address alone is not enough to pin illegal downloads on a specific person.

The ruling comes in the context of mass torrent lawsuits that just dump thousands of IP addresses into the court and charge everyone associated with them. Cases like theHurt Locker suit filed against 5,000 people for downloading the movie. Judge Gary Brown’s ruling isn’t the first to point out that these cases are idiotic, since there is no practical way to efficiently tie that many address to the specific individuals doing the downloading, but it’s by far the most detailed. We’ve embedded the full ruling below. [TorrentFreak]

Judge Gary Brown IP Address Ruling

Source: Gizmodo.

When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn’t see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn’t want to work for a company that would seek such personal information. But as the job market steadily improves, other job candidates are confronting the same question from prospective employers, and some of them cannot afford to say no.

In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.

“It’s akin to requiring someone’s house keys,” said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor who calls it “an egregious privacy violation.”

Questions have been raised about the legality of the practice, which is also the focus of proposed legislation in Illinois and Maryland that would forbid public agencies from asking for access to social networks.

CONTINUED at WTOP.

The Department of Justice offered a defense Thursday for President Obama’s controversial decision to make several recess appointments while Congress was holding pro forma sessions.

In a memo, Justice argued the pro forma sessions held every third day in the Senate do not constitute a functioning body that can render advice and consent on the president’s nominees. It said the president acted consistently under the law by making the appointments.

“Although the Senate will have held pro forma sessions regularly from January 3 to January 23, in our judgment, those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the president from determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to ‘receive communications from the president or participate as a body in making appointments,’” Virginia Seitz, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in the memo dated Jan. 6.

The Office of Legal Counsel concluded the president has authority to make recess appointments during a recess and that Congress can only prevent the president from making such appointments “by remaining continuously in session and available to receive and act on nominations,” not by holding pro forma sessions.

Republicans, who had set up the pro forma sessions to prevent Obama from making the appointments, are expected to challenge them in court.
Obama used his recess-appointment powers to place Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He also named three people to the National Labor Relations Board.

Seitz offered several points in defense of Obama’s actions.

The memo noted that pro forma sessions typically last only a few seconds and require the presence of only one senator.

CONTINUED at The Hill.

*Taken from Reuters.

Controversial new Internet rules adopted late last year by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will soon be published officially, a step expected to trigger legal challenges.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget signed off on the rules on Friday, according to a notice on the OMB’s website, clearing way for publication in the Federal Register, a process which generally takes one to three weeks.

The rules, which try to balance fair treatment of competing content with the need for internet providers to manage their networks, will go into effect 60 days after publication.

Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and MetroPCS Communications Inc (PCS.N) had accused the FCC of overstepping its authority in a challenge shortly after the FCC’s 3-2 vote.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

New legislation that would give the US government the power to seize website domains on a whim with no oversight merely for linking to sites that host copyrighted material has been labeled a hallmark of “repressive regimes” by a group of law professors who warn that the bill allows the state to “break the Internet addressing system”.

The Protect IP bill, currently stalled in the Senate, represents a death blow to Internet freedom of speech. It would turn the entire web into a clone of the YouTube model, which routinely censors and deletes material when requested to by governments or corporations and shuts down user channels without recourse.

The legislation merely codifies what Homeland Security is already practicing, seizing and shutting down websites without any form of legal proceedings and in many cases not even notifying the owner.

In an open letter penned by Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford University, David S. Levine of Elon University and David G. Post of Temple University, they warn that the bill would require Internet hosting companies and search engines to de-list entire websites on the basis of a mere copyright claim by a copyright holder, with no independent or legal process undertaken.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

Forget copyright infringement, You Tube is now complying with removal orders from governments to stop populist rage going viral.

In a frightening example of how the state is tightening its grip around the free Internet, it has emerged that You Tube is complying with thousands of requests from governments to censor and remove videos that show protests and other examples of citizens simply asserting their rights, while also deleting search terms by government mandate.

The latest example is You Tube’s compliance with a request from the British government to censor footage of the British Constitution Group’s Lawful Rebellion protest, during which they attempted to civilly arrest Judge Michael Peake at Birkenhead county court.

Peake was ruling on a case involving Roger Hayes, former member of UKIP, who has refused to pay council tax, both as a protest against the government’s treasonous activities in sacrificing Britain to globalist interests and as a result of Hayes clearly proving that council tax is illegal.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Robert P. Murphy.

A major piece of financial news last week was billionaire Raj Rajaratnam’s conviction on 14 counts of securities fraud and conspiracy. Rajaratnam, founder of the hedge fund Galleon Group, was worth an estimated $1.8 billion in 2009. His conviction has pleased those who want the feds to crack down on “insider trading” and show the fat cats on Wall Street that they aren’t above the rules.

Although the public generally loves the fall of a ruthless and greedy financial titan — this, of course, is what made Oliver Stone’s original Wall Street such a hit — economists have argued for decades that the practice of “insider trading” can actually be beneficial. In practice, the government can use the amorphous “crime” to go after any successful trader it wants. In a free society, there would be no such thing as laws against so-called insider trading.

The Facts of the Case

To argue that “insider trading” is a bogus offense, and that laws against it only give the government the power to interfere with economically beneficial activity, is not to suggest that Rajaratnam was an innocent babe in the woods. Indeed, some of the episodes being used to shock the general public would probably also be criminal in a genuinely free market.

For example, in 2008, Rajat Gupta, a board member at Goldman Sachs, apparently told Rajaratnam that Warren Buffet was about to invest $5 billion in Goldman. Rajaratnam bought millions of dollars worth of the stock before the market closed, and then he profited handsomely when the news broke and the stock jumped the next day. Later in the year, after a board meeting, Gupta apparently told Rajaratnam that Goldman would report earnings well below expectations. Rajaratnam dumped the stock, getting out before the earnings news became public and pushed down Goldman’s share price.

CONTINUED..

Why is Abon’go Obama this weeks supreme d-bag? Well, read this story from Mediaite.

Abon’go Malik “Roy” Obama, President Barack Obama’s Kenyan half brother, is drawing the attention of Fox Business’ Eric Bolling over concerns about the legitimacy of his charity, the Barack H. Foundation. Is the Foundation, legally, a non-profit? It had once registered as a non-profit in Virginia, but that registration has since lapsed. Has it done anything to actually help the poor? The answer, unfortunately, remains murky.

Bolling called Mr. Obama in Kenya in an attempt to gain some clarity. The person who answered the telephone – insinuated by Bolling to have been Abon’go Obama himself – was, apparently, highly defensive, even asking Bolling why Mr. Obama, a “nobody,” would even be on his radar. The man asked why Fox News / Business wasn’t busy “going after bin Laden” (Um…) and asked why they were “saying that Obama’s mother is a prostitute.”

Bolling brought on Juan Williams to discuss the matter further. Williams opined that the Foundation’s shadiness should be a cause for concern, and that it should not be tolerated. Here, he said, is someone attempting to capitalize off the President’s name (which also happens to be the name of the two Obamas’ father, for whom the Foundation is named). Williams pointed out that there seems to be a trend among Presidents’ brothers attempting to exploit their more famous kin.

Later, Bolling’s panel asked why President Obama hasn’t done more to look into his brother’s dealings.

Video here.