Tag: email
How to Enjoy Protected, Ad-Free Emailing For Life

How to Enjoy Protected, Ad-Free Emailing For Life

Trying to get your email coordinated can quickly give you that “herding cats” feeling. Between different email addresses, different email clients, even different scheduling, texting, and other added feature elements, it still required a lot of hoop-jumping before you can funnel it all down to one single source for all your emailing needs. And don’t get us started on spam filters…

To help streamline your inbox, we’ve assembled some of the most popular email apps to help you get your email pipeline running smoothly — with some significant savings, to boot.

Mailbird Pro: Lifetime Plan

It’s full email integration — all under one hood.  Mailbird Pro synchronizes your email addresses, day planners, calendars and messaging apps into one easy-to-use and easy-to-follow interface. Customize the email priorities and task reminders that work best for you, and enjoy safe, productive communication from now on.

Buy now: Get a lifetime of Mailbird Pro’s life-altering service at 75% off its regular price — only $19.

Soverin Plan: 5-Yr Subscription

Unlike email giants like Google and Microsoft, you can enjoy an ad-free email box with Soverin. As opposed to the targeted ads you see with those big free services, Soverin doesn’t mine information for advertisers. Instead, you get a completely private, completely secure, untracked, unscanned and ad-free email experience.

Buy now: Get five years of Soverin Plan protection (a $155 value) for only $99 for a limited time.

Throttle Pro: Lifetime Subscription

Want to make sure random website and email lists don’t collect and sell your email address to unscrupulous buyers? Throttle Pro works with your web browser to create new unique email address every time you need to enter your information online. Fill out web forms with the confidence that you won’t get a load of new spam and your vital contact details are safely anonymous.

Buy now: Lock in a one-time price of just $99 to protect your email forever…or get one of Throttle Pro’s 3-year ($89) or 1-year ($39) service options.

This sponsored post is brought to you by StackCommerce.

They Were Never Close To Indicting Hillary — 20 Years Ago Or Yesterday

They Were Never Close To Indicting Hillary — 20 Years Ago Or Yesterday

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear: specifically to September 1992, when Attorney General William Barr, top-ranking FBI officials, and — believe it or not — a Treasury Department functionary who actually sold “Presidential Bitch” T-shirts with Hillary Clinton’s likeness from her government office, pressured the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock to open an investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater investment.

The Arkansas prosecutor was Charles “Chuck” Banks, a Republican appointed by President Reagan, and recently nominated to a Federal judgeship by President George H.W. Bush.  It was definitely in Banks’s interest to see Bush re-elected.

The problem was that Banks knew all about Madison Guaranty S&L and its screwball proprietor Jim McDougal. His office had unsuccessfully prosecuted the Clintons’ Whitewater partner for bank fraud. He knew perfectly well that McDougal had deceived them about their investment, just as he’d fooled everybody in a frantic fiscal juggling act trying to save his doomed thrift.

Banks and local FBI agents were unimpressed with the “Presidential Bitch” woman’s analysis. She showed shaky grasp of banking law, and obvious bias — listing virtually every prominent Democrat in Arkansas as a suspect. When FBI headquarters in Washington ordered its Little Rock office to proceed on L. Jean Lewis’s criminal referral, Banks decided he had to act.

He wrote a stinging letter to his superiors in the DOJ refusing to be a party to a trumped-up probe clearly intended to affect the presidential election. “Even media questions about such an investigation,” he wrote, “all too often publicly purport to ‘legitimize what can’t be proven.’”

Keep that phrase in mind.

Banks also promised to refer reporters to the Attorney General. And that was the end of the Bush administration’s “Hail Mary” attempt to win the 1992 election with a fake scandal. Also the end of Chuck Banks’ political career.

The prevailing themes of the Clinton Legends, however, were set: imaginary corruption, and a “Presidential Bitch.” Eight years and $70 million later, Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater prosecutors folded their cards, proving the Little Rock prosecutor had been right all along.

Shamefully, several of Starr’s assistants recently showed up in the Washington Post reminiscing about how they almost indicted Hillary Clinton. Except that they never did, and for the same reason FBI director James Comey wouldn’t dare take his largely adverbial case (“extremely,” “carelessly,” etc.) into a courtroom against her.

Because when the accused can afford competent defense counsel, a bogus case endangers the prosecutor more than the defendant. Indict the former Secretary of State and lose? Goodbye career.

If the Post had a sense of humor, they’d have illustrated the article with a photo of “Judge Starr,” as he liked to be called, dressed in his cheerleader costume leading Baylor University’s felonious football team onto the field.

But back to Comey’s successful grandstand play — successful at protecting Comey’s own career while wounding the Democratic presidential nominee, that is. See, no way could the former Secretary of State be prosecuted for mishandling classified information without convincing evidence that a bad guy got his hands on it. The best Comey could do was to say that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Clinton herself noted that Comey was simply speculating. “But if you go by the evidence,” she said “there is no evidence that the system was breached or hacked successfully.” (Although the State Department’s was.) Pundits can sneer, but you can’t convict somebody with maybe.

What secrets are we talking about? Slate’s Fred Kaplan explains: “Seven of [Clinton’s] eight email chains dealt with CIA drone strikes, which are classified top secret/special access program—unlike Defense Department drone strikes, which are unclassified. The difference is that CIA drones hit targets in countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not officially at war; they are part of covert operations… But these operations are covert mainly to provide cover for the Pakistani and Yemeni governments, so they don’t have to admit they’re cooperating with America.”

Top Secret, maybe. But regularly featured in the New York Times. The eighth email chain was about the President of Malawi.

Seriously.

Even Comey’s press conference assertion that Clinton handled emails marked classified failed to survive a congressional hearing. Shown the actual documents, Comey conceded that they weren’t properly marked. Indeed, it was a “reasonable inference” they weren’t classified at all. Both concerned trivial diplomatic issues in Third World countries. Really.

Michael Cohen in the Boston Globe: “Whatever one thinks of Clinton’s actions, Comey’s depiction of Clinton’s actions as ‘extremely careless’ was prejudicial and inappropriate. The only reason for delivering such a lacerating attack on Clinton was to inoculate Comey and the FBI from accusations that he was not recommending charges be filed due to political pressure. But that’s an excuse, not an explanation, and a weak one at that.”

The very definition, indeed, of legitimizing “what can’t be proven.”

Warrant Concerns Could Stymie Email Privacy Bill

Warrant Concerns Could Stymie Email Privacy Bill

By Alisha Green, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan House bill that would require the government obtain a warrant to access emails is facing road blocks as groups including law enforcement and federal agencies seek exceptions.

Despite attracting more than 300 co-sponsors and support from tech companies, opponents of the Email Privacy Act told lawmakers Tuesday at a packed House Judiciary hearing they fear the measure could impede investigations unless there are some exceptions.

“Congress can ensure that we are furthering the legitimate needs of law enforcement … by joining with the warrant requirement recognized exceptions and procedures,” Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., said. Goodlatte is not a co-sponsor of the legislation, though more than half of the committee’s members are.

The bill aims to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 for the digital age and address when law enforcement can access emails. Under current law, the government can access emails without a warrant if they are stored for more than 180 days in the cloud, which refers to a network of remote servers. The legislation would require a warrant no matter how long emails have been stored in the cloud.

While committee members and industry groups agree about the need for requiring a warrant, nuances in the bill have prevented it from reaching markup despite having the highest number of co-sponsors in the current session.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, has raised concerns that even though it would be able to issue a subpoena to an individual, it would be required to obtain a warrant to access information directly from an Internet service provider. The SEC does not have the authority to obtain warrants because it is a civil agency.

Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s enforcement division, said the agency needs a way to obtain information directly from the Internet service providers in cases when an individual has not responded fully to a subpoena.

“Unsurprisingly, individuals who violate the law are often reluctant to produce to the government evidence of their own misconduct,” he said.

The SEC is asking for a change to the bill so the agency could use a court order to request information from an Internet service provider.

There’s been significant pushback on that request, though, from the bill’s supporters.

Richard Salgado, director of law enforcement and information security at Google, said such carve-outs for civil agencies would go against the Fourth Amendment. He also argued there are other ways for the agencies to get the information they need even if the target of an investigation doesn’t comply with a subpoena.

Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., the lead sponsor of the bill along with Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said the concerns should be discussed in a markup, but he added he’s wary of adding exceptions to the warrant requirement for civil agencies.

“I think that would greatly undermine the purpose of the legislation and make it difficult to support,” he told reporters after the hearing.

Yoder also said he does not want to see the bill “weighed down” with provisions from other email privacy legislation after Goodlatte said he plans to take up another bill that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from compelling tech companies to turn over information on foreign customers held in servers overseas.

Goodlatte said the committee plans to hold a hearing soon on “issues surrounding law enforcement access to information located on servers outside the U.S.,” suggesting lawmakers will take up the related Microsoft-backed Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act.

But that bill has less support in Congress and from tech companies, while the Email Privacy Act has much broader support.

“Passing legislation to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act would make it clear that the warrant standard of the U.S. Constitution applies to private digital information just as it applies to physical property,” Linda Moore, president and CEO of TechNet, said in a statement. The group’s members include Apple, Google and Yahoo.

The hearing also came the day after disclosures about the special authority the FBI has used to compel Internet and communications providers to hand over user information, including full browsing histories.

A court filing made public Monday shows how the FBI is able to conduct digital surveillance outside of requirements for warrants or subpoenas.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed to the use of national security letters as an example of why he doesn’t trust administrations to be careful when using exceptions.

©2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte via wikipedia