Two arrested in Somerset Co. drug bust

10011361_H9979227-250x250.jpg


FBI Ten Most Wanted:


The FBI is offering rewards for information leading to the apprehension of the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Select the images of suspects to display more information.

Just Reported

Two white men charged with hate crime in alleged attack of 56-year-old black …

Two white men charged with hate crime in alleged attack of 56-year-old black
New York Daily News
Two white men were charged with a hate crime after they attacked and hurled racial slurs at a 56-year-old black auxiliary police officer in Brooklyn, authorities said. Samuel Brendler, 21, and Ahrone Koskase, 22, attacked Dieuphene Hyppolite, 56, as he …
2 Jewish Men Charged With Hate Crime for Attack on Crown Heights Man DNAinfo
Crown Heights – Two Israelis Charged In Hate Crime Attack on African JP Updates
56-year-old man attacked, beaten in Crown Heights racial attack WABC-TV

Family of John Geer, Springfield man shot by Fairfax County Police, files …

Family of John Geer, Springfield man shot by Fairfax County Police, files …WJLAOn that date, Fairfax County Police responded to a reported domestic dispute in a home on the 7900 block of Pebble Brook Court. Whoever reported the incident claimed that …

Former Carroll ISD student faces charge of terrorist threat

A former Carroll ISD student who threatened to commit a school shooting on Tuesday was arrested and faces charges of terroristic threat and harassment, police said.

Hudson Bales, 18, sent a Twitter message threatening to commit a school shooting to a Carroll Senior High School student about 2 p.m. He also threatened the student who notified a Southlake Police Department school resource officer, police said.

Southlake police were in touch with Bales within 12 minutes of the initial message and arrested him. No classes were disrupted and police Chief Steve Mylett said he does not believe Bales still poses a threat to any Carroll ISD schools.

Bales was booked into the Keller jail.

TOP PICKS

Man Refuses Deputies’ Order To Stop Recording During Attempt To Search Home Without Warrant

palmterrc.238120626_std.jpg

“I said turn it off.”

“Do you have a warrant?”

As two San Bernardino County sheriff deputies attempted to search a man’s house in the middle of the night, the officers’ first order was for the man of the house to turn off his cell phone which was recording the situation.

The deputies claimed to be looking for a “wanted felon” – a man who reportedly struck his girlfriend – and were told that the man in the video may be harboring him. However, upon knocking on the man’s door looking for the fugitive, the deputies first course of action was to demand that the man whose door they were knocking on stop recording.

After the man refused the deputy’s initial order to stop recording, one of the deputies again stated, “Turn that off, I don’t know what that is,” insinuating that he was in fear for his life.

Deputies then demanded the man’s name and identification, which the man refused to give. Cops cannot demand identification with force of law unless they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Here, the deputies attempted to argue that the man at home may have been the suspect in question – an argument which the deputies apparently knew was unfounded, as they quickly dropped it – and that the man at home may be guilty of “harboring a fugitive,” another premise which was completely unfounded, as a fugitive is a person for whom a warrant has been issued, not merely a suspect.

The deputies also repeatedly asked to search the man’s home, to which the man rightly demanded to see a search warrant. Without exigent circumstances such as chasing a suspect from the scene of the crime, the deputies had no legal right to search the man’s home without a search warrant.

When the man asserted his rights and refused to provide ID or allow the deputies to search his home, one of them said, “I’m gonna drag you out,” before realizing he was being recorded and stopping himself. The man then truthfully stated that he was in fear for his life, using the same line cops often use to get away with murder.

For PINAC readers who encounter a similar circumstance, it may be safer to speak with the cops without opening the door.

For news tips on aerial photography and drones, contact Andrew Meyer, PINAC’s staff writer covering UAV photography, the First Amendment, and more. Follow him on twitter @theandrewmeyer.

There are 101 stories in the Naked City

AR-140909892.jpg

I’m shocked, shocked to find there are nude photos of gorgeous Hollywood stars floating around the Internet!

On Sunday, the world was rocked by the revelation a hacker penetrated Apple’s iCloud system and possibly their “Find My Phone” app to steal nude photographs of 101 of Hollywood’s most beautiful actresses.

Now don’t get me wrong, theft is theft and this is a real crime with real consequences and represents a horrible violation of privacy.

Still, if I looked like Kate Upton, Jennifer Lawrence or any of the women on the list I’d only pose for nude photos.

Pictures of me naked would make Al Gore un-invent the Internet.

But Rihanna? Isn’t nearly every picture Rhianna posts on her Instagram account sans-clothing? Didn’t Jenny McCarthy get her start in the pages of Playboy?

Stolen nude photos of Kim Kardashian?

Are we talking about the same Kim Kardashian whose “career” was launched by a strategically leaked sex tape? That, and of course her Dad helping O.J. walk.

Inexplicably comedian and actor Ricky Gervais is now at the center of the story after Tweeting out the obvious: If you don’t want nude photos of yourself posted on the Internet, don’t pose for nude photos. Now he’s taking a digital beating.

While its impossible to argue with the truth of Gervais’ statement, funny boy does miss the point.

We’d also never lose a dime to bank robbers if we didn’t keep our money in the bank. There’s no end to the crimes and tragedies we could avoid if only the law-abiding would stop living their lives.

The death of privacy is one of the ugliest of the unintended consequences that has come in the wake of the digital revolution. We traded privacy for convenience. Are you happy with that deal?

While we still believe we have the right to our own personal space, especially those intimate moments that are nobody’s business except you, your partner and the camera crew you’ve hired to document the event, reality is very different.

The historic “Roe v. Wade” decision by the Supreme Court was rooted in a right to privacy that doesn’t actually appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Yet a “right” to privacy still holds a special place in the hearts and minds of all of us: “A man’s home is his castle.” “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”

Not anymore.

To the surprise of no one, the news that pictures of hundreds of famous and incredibly beautiful women are now available for free on the Internet has the public buzzing and downloading. Too bad news the NSA is recording every keystroke of every digital device, recording every phone conversation and Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru window order didn’t get the public as worked up.

Finger-waging moralists are condemning the victims while privately counting the days until “50 Shades of Grey” opens at the local hassleplex while feminists continue to struggle with the reality of female sexuality, pingponging between condemning the objectification of women by an exploitive film and TV industry and encouraging women to own the power of their own bodies.

Creepy Christopher Cheney is serving a 10-year sentence for stealing and selling nude photos of Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis and Christina Aguilera back in 2012. Whoever hacked this latest batch of photos will undoubtedly wind up behind bars unless he first lands in Moscow as a guest of Vladimir Putin.

The theft of nude photos of famous celebrities from their personal computers and smart phones could easily be written off as the consequences of hyper-narcissism. But would you feel that way if some pervert on a ladder were shooting pictures through your bedroom window?

The most chilling aspect of this story is not just how vulnerable we’ve become to snoops, spies and hackers rather how willingly we’ve punted away our private lives for digital access.

It’s not just Big Government, the CIA or whatever they call the KGB today; it’s angry exes, nosy neighbors and corporations who want to know everything about us.

And in an age when we count our friends by the number of “Likes” we get in social media the right to privacy seems as quaint as grandmothers doilies.

Doug McIntyre’s column appears Sunday and Wednesday. He can be reached at: Doug@KABC.com.

Should naked photo hacking be considered a sex crime?

transparent-1093278.png

Los Angeles (AFP) – Already hounded by paparazzi on their doorsteps, celebrities face a new battle to protect their privacy from hackers willing to splash their most intimate, behind-closed-doors photos online.

After the massive release of naked photos of stars including Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence, some experts said it should be treated as a sex crime, rather that just an Internet or privacy breach.

“We are going through times where hackers will try to seek our information. Celebrities are at risk but also CEOs and politicians,” said Jules Polonetsky, head of the The Future of Privacy think-tank.

It is difficult to know the hackers’ motivation, whether it is to “embarrass women or show off their technical skills,” he said.

“It doesn’t appear that money was the goal,” he said, in contrast to the huge sums that can be made by paparazzi photographers by selling their pictures to tabloid publications.

“There is a natural curiosity about celebrities… The Internet unfortunately breeds some nefarious, immoral behavior,” added one Hollywood agent, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.


View gallery

Girls’ creator Lena Durham pictured with musician Jack Antonoff at the Emmy Awards in Los Angele …

For Polonetsky, “this is a sex crime more than a leak” — a view expressed by a number of celebrities themselves on Twitter following the weekend hack.

“Remember, when you look at these pictures you are violating these women again and again… The person who stole these pictures and leaked them is not a hacker: they’re a sex offender,” said “Girls” creator Lena Dunham.

The leak of private celebrity images recalls a similar case from 2011, in which a hacker broke into the email accounts of stars including Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis and Christina Aguilera.

Christopher Chaney, 36, was jailed for 10 years and ordered to pay $76,000 to victims, after pleading guilty in a deal with prosecutors. He could have been jailed for up to 121 years if he had been convicted on all charges.

- Keeping data private -


View gallery

Celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred (C) pictured at the wedding of J Charles McFadden (L) and Daniel McFa …

The celebrity agent — contacted by AFP as tech giant Apple admitted Tuesday that some accounts had been hacked in “targeted attack” — said managers, lawyers, personal assistants and publicists may have to do more.

“It’s an area, data security, that we’re still learning about… It’s an area that industry has to speed up on,” he said, adding: “I think it will definitely spur action to secure their private content.

“It will affect the way people think about the cloud and will change their behavior,” he added.

Celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred told AFP that public figures needed to understand the risks posed by ever-advancing technology.

“If you wouldn’t want to see it on tomorrow’s front page don’t sent it via unencrypted email or store it in public cloud services, or on your cell phone for that matter,” Allred said.

The vulnerability of passwords is at the heart of the latest photo hacking, said Polonetsky. “It appears this was not an infrastructure flaw … that it was done by programs that work to withdraw passwords,” he said.

“When you’re a celebrity, we know a lot of things about you … where you were born, your elementary school, your pet’s name,” he said.

Stars should definitely consider using password management systems, which generate complicated passwords and remember them. That or so-called “two factor authentication,” where verification codes are sent to a cellphone.

To be even more secure, “finger scanners in the future could be a good protection,” he said, making it impossible to retrieve content without its owner being physically present.

  • Celebrities
  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Jules Polonetsky