Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Self-defense troops attacked a Ukrainian military unit at around 5:00am near Zelenopolye village in the Lugansk region, not far from the Russian border, Kiev’s officials reported.
A military official described the consequences of what he called “a bloody terrorist act” as “destruction” saying that about 30 were feared killed.
"About 30 servicemen are thought to have been killed in a shelling by militants using Grad multiple rocket launchers at units of the Ukrainian anti-terrorist operation (ATO) forces near the village of Zelenopolye,” Zoryan Shkyryak, an adviser to Interior Minister Arseny Avakov, said at a briefing. “There might be more victims.”
Фото разгромленных сегодня утром подразделений 24 ОМБр и 79 ОАЭМБр. Жуть полная... pic.twitter.com/oxYWGLpTGr
— Военные Фото (@RuPhotoMilitary) July 11, 2014
However, the Ministry of Defense press-office later confirmed the deaths of only 19 servicemen, lowering the initial death toll. It also said that 93 soldiers had sustained wounds, while Shkyryak put the number of injured at 100 people.
Self-defense forces have confirmed that they targeted the Ukrainian army convoy with Grad rocket launchers.
“According to our information, the Ukrainian military convoy from Lvov came under fire. The exact number of killed is unknown; there might be two or three dozen killed. The convoy was destroyed,” a member of the opposition told RIA Novosti.
Speaking in front of journalists, the Interior Ministry adviser vowed revenge for the attack, saying that those behind it “will be punished, either eliminated or captured, and they will answer according to the laws of Ukraine."
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko later echoed the retaliation threats, stating that for each of the killed men “militants will pay with dozens and hundreds of theirs [people].”
One of the soldiers’ wives has told the UNIAN news agency that her husband contacted her by phone and said that fighting had started again near Zelenopolye as opposition self-defense troops fired at a military convoy that was transporting servicemen wounded in the morning attack.
The woman, who was not named, told the journalists that pro-government troops have no equipment and ammunition to fire back.
“They really need help and reinforcements,” she told journalists, urging them to pass on the information to Kiev.
Meanwhile, the spokesman for Kiev’s military operation in the east, Vladislav Seleznev, has said that 23 Ukrainian soldiers have died in battle between opposition and government forces in eastern Ukraine in the last 24 hours.
“Twenty-three members of the armed forces of Ukraine and the state border service of Ukraine have been killed, with 93 sustaining injuries. All the wounded are receiving medical treatment," Seleznev posted on his Facebook page.
Seleznev stressed that the death toll figures he shared in his post included the number of soldiers killed on Friday morning.
Confrontations between the two sides in the area close to Russian-Ukrainian border have recently intensified.
“The epicenter of severe confrontation came closer to the state border line,” the Ukrainian State Border control said in a statement on Friday.
In the wake of heavy fighting, Russia has closed three major border crossings: ‘Donetsk’, ‘Gukovo’ and ‘Novoshakhtinsk’ on the Russian-Ukrainian border, according to Vasily Malayev, a spokesman for the Federal Security Service in the Rostov region.
On Thursday, two Ukrainian border control guards were killed and another two were injured near the Dolzhansky border checkpoint.
“This is confirmed information, according to all law enforcement agencies and the Ministry of Defense, and The National Guard, and the border service," the Ukrainian National Guard's information security chief Yury Stets said.
Meanwhile, shelling continues all over the region with Kiev’s troops targeting residential areas.
In the recent attack on Friday, the Ukrainian air force fired rockets at the city of Dzerzhinsk in the Donetsk region and destroyed a cemetery, transformer vault and a gas pipeline.
Watch video footage from the bombed cemetery in Dzerzhinsk
At the same time, opposition in Dzerzhinsk claims it has downed a Ukrainian army jet, according to Itar-Tass.
Another Kiev aircraft was knocked out in the neighboring Lugansk region, the news agency reported.
In the meantime, more civilians are becoming innocent victims of Ukrainian army shelling. In one of the latest tragedies in Lugansk, a woman was killed as a shell landed on her apartment’s balcony.
There are those who have miraculously survived.
RT’s Maria Finoshina met Andrey Girin, who brought his wife to a hospital after their car was fired at.
“I was in the shop and I heard someone scream 'lie down on the ground.' But I yelled that my wife was in the car, so I looked out of the window, saw that she wasn't there and heard her knocking on the shop door,” he said.
The country’s deputy health minister, Vasily Lazoryshynets, said on Thursday that 478 civilians, including seven children, had been killed in Kiev’s military crackdown on the eastern regions of Ukraine – which “is unfortunately greater than the military losses.”
However, the Ukrainian Ministry of Health later reduced the civilian death toll figure, saying that the deputy minister “only provided the latest statistics on the overall mortality level.”
One year ago today Edward Snowden's statement on seeking asylum in Russia, as published by Wikileaks: Hello, My name is Ed Snowden.Read the rest
Android Wear may be an operating system for smartwatches… but under the hood it’s a lot like Android for phones, tablets, TVs, and other devices. So it’s not surprising that shortly after the first Android Wear watches started shipping we started to see developers creating custom ROMs. Want to know how to get a little […]
After months of waiting, a Ninth Circuit panel has finally responded to Google's plea, supported by public interest groups (including EFF), journalists, librarians, other service providers, and law professors, to reconsider its disastrous opinion in the case of Garcia v. Google. The good news is that we managed to get the panel to revisit its opinion. The bad news is that it essentially doubled down.
Quick background: several months ago, and over a vigorous dissent, a panel majority ordered Google to remove copies of the notorious Innocence of Muslims film from YouTube. Why? Because one of the actors in the film insists she has a copyright interest in her performance and, based on that interest, claims to have a right to have the video taken offline. Actress Cindy Lee Garcia—who was tricked into appearing on-screen, overdubbed, for five seconds—sued Google to have the footage removed. The district court refused and Garcia appealed. The Ninth Circuit concluded Garcia's copyright claim was "doubtful" but nonetheless ordered Google to remove the film from YouTube and take steps to prevent future uploads.
The uproar was immediate, for good reason. As we and others explained, the order amounts to a prior restraint of speech, something that should never happen where the underlying claim is "doubtful." (In fact the Copyright office later refused to register Garcia's performance). The majority dismissed that concern by claiming that the First Amendment doesn’t protect copyright infringement, which missed the point. The First Amendment does protect lawful speech, which is why courts shouldn’t issue censorship orders in any but the rarest circumstances, and only where it is highly likely that the speech is actually unlawful. What is worse the panel’s ruling was accompanied by a gag order forbidding Google from discussing the ruling for almost a week.
The amended opinion issued today recognizes some of our concerns but continues to sidestep the key issues. Notably, the amended opinion does not address our most basic concern: that the court applied the wrong standard altogether. The takedown order was a mandatory preliminary injunction, which should never occur unless the law and the facts clearly favor the person asking for it. What is worse, the court gave short shrift to the public interest. Innocence of Muslims is doubtless a highly offensive video, but it is also part of the historical record. Thanks to the injunction, the public can continue to discuss the video—but we can't see what we are discussing.
The amended opinion dismissed several other concerns on procedural grounds, insisting that the district court can consider them later:
Nothing we say today precludes the district court from concluding that Garcia doesn’t have a copyrightable interest, or that Google prevails on any of its defenses. ...
After we first published our opinion, amici raised other issues, such as the applicability of the fair use doctrine, see 17 U.S.C. § 107, and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, see 47 U.S.C. § 230. Because these defenses were not raised by the parties, we do not address them. The district court is free to consider them if Google properly raises them.
First Amendment protections are ‘embodied in the Copyright Act’s distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas,’ and in the ‘latitude for scholarship and comment’ safeguarded by the fair use defense.” Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (quoting Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985)). Google hasn’t raised fair use as a defense in this appeal, see page 11 supra, so we do not consider it in determining its likelihood of success. This does not, of course, preclude Google from raising the point in the district court, provided it properly preserved the defense in its pleadings.
This is profoundly disappointing. When a case clearly implicates the public's right to access the historical record, courts shouldn't kick the can down the road. And as the amended dissent recognizes, the panel had ample legal authority to address the flaws in its opinion, rather than referring them to another court.
Google's request for a rehearing en banc (i.e., a rehearing by the entire court rather than just a three-judge panel) is still pending, so the Ninth Circuit has another chance to revisit the case. Let's hope it does so.Files: garciaamended.pdfRelated Issues: Fair Use and Intellectual Property: Defending the BalanceNo Downtime for Free SpeechFree SpeechRelated Cases: Garcia v. Google, Inc
Share this: || Join EFF
When the Asus Transformer Pad Infinity TF700T launched in 2012 it was one of the few 10 inch Android tablets available with a full HD display and a quad-core processor. It sold for $499 and up at the time. These days the tablet’s Tegra 3 processor is starting to look a bit dated… but when you […]
In the 6th year and 7th month After Decentralization (AD), the noble Queen Tatiana has decided to augment her career as a roaming minstrel with the responsibilities of the throne of the Sales Director for Bitcoin Magazine.
When her royalty, Tatiana, was probed about this news she gathered all in the Bitcoin Castle to her throne room and joyously proclaimed:
“I couldn’t be more excited to join the team at Bitcoin Magazine! Media has always been a passion of mine, and to couple my love of music, culture, and cryptography is a dream come true! This is a wonderful opportunity to share this technology in a way that fosters a greater understanding and appreciation of Bitcoin. I love how diverse the team is, and how the magazine has something for everyone! In addition to expanding the readership, I hope to offer advertisers new and innovative ways to educated consumers about their projects.”
She requests that all letters related to advertising be sent to her new address: email@example.com.
Tatiana has already made her mark and has chosen a very fun theme for the next issue.
Our former editor and current webmaster have wanted to implement a pay-what-you-want (PWYW) system for quite some time now. And I’m pleased to announce that is available! Some of you more adept users have already started using it!
PWYW is currently available for our first 10 issues. This is vintage Bitcoin Magazine people! While we have listed a suggested price, you are free to pay whatever the hell you want.
Issue 21 is now available! We have released some posts from the issue, but there is a lot of content that deviates from our previous subject matter and focuses more on how artists are using Bitcoin. Speaking of artists, we had the gifted Alexander from CryptoArt make our cover and boy is it beautiful… with an end-of-the-world feel! What is also beautiful is you have the ability to tip Alexander without even buying the magazine! We’ve included his public address on our cover.
We’ve gotten a lot of messages with concern over the amount of time it took to get this issue and other issues out this year. I will tell you now that we are doing everything in our power to analyze our internal workflow and be more efficient. We were 1 or 2 issues late when I started as Editor-In-Chief and it’s my goal to get back on track.
The post The Commencement of Queen Tatiana’s Reign, Pay What You Want For Issues 1-10, Issue 21 is out! appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.