I have recently searched about public security
cameras round the world and i found few hidden searches on Google. The links of the
companies used for live view of cameras are actually hidden for public
and no one knows where they are? There are several links which i
converted into the images below
Put anyone of these URL without '#' into
Google.com and then you will find google links to websites which will
show you live security cameras in public as well as private. More links
The cameras are
placed on different places like airport in Germany, pool view, view
inside hotel e.t.c. I have got a link for you if you are not interested
in typing above links then the given link is a demo of above links http://www.inurl-viewerframe-mode-refresh.com/category/inurl-viewerframe-mode-motion/
http://pulsitemeter.com/intitle/intitle-live-view/---axis.html
Its not have been easy to watch Security cameras live its really a big hacking. Read the post so you can have idea of it.
Go to www.google.com and then type the following code
inurl:”viewframe?mode=refresh”network camera
Hit enter and you can see there a list of Cameras come up . Select anyone and open it and watch Camera with controls in you hand.
Or to watch more clubs , homes cameras type this in google
view index.shtml
Hit enter and see a list of cameras , choose any security camera
that you wish for , normally go to any link which is larger , may be
some of the links are broken but don’t worry go back and then choose any
other else so enjoy hacking security cameras and reveal the unhidden magic , show it to those who think that you are not a hacker and prove yourself a hacker. huh …….. Note: Remember you need some Internet speed to do this and it is not illegal . some cameras are made to watch by public.
WHEN a few lawyers chose to attack and deride Aitzaz Ahsan for
defending Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Supreme Court where the prime minister had
been summoned they betrayed another streak of intolerance that some of them
have been displaying since their movement of 2007-2009.
The lawyers’ resort to violence — against court functionaries and fellow
lawyers — did not raise their credit as defenders of the rule of law. Most
people of goodwill for lawyers tried to overlook such incidents as signs of
youthful exuberance in a fraternity that includes many sticklers for legal
formalities and social responsibilities.
The decision by lawyers, however small their number, to mock one of the
heroes of their recent movement cannot be passed over because it raises three
issues: i) the status of the apex court; ii) every person’s right to defence;
and iii) lawyers’ ethics.
According to media reports, the hecklers were not content with shouting
anti-Aitzaz slogans on the court premises, they also raised a familiar chant in
solidarity with the honourable chief justice of Pakistan. The implication was clear
— that Aitzaz Ahsan had turned against the chief justice. In other words, they
transformed the head of the judicial hierarchy into a party to an issue before
the court. Such unwise friends of the judiciary cause it much greater
embarrassment and harm than the effects of principled dissent.
We may have moved beyond the tradition of good old days when those who
praised judges and their judgments were held as much guilty of contempt as
those who criticised them — and a good judge (retired) of the Lahore High court
was convicted of that — but there is a limit to which the judiciary can be
allowed to be politicised, even made controversial, by partisans of one cause
or another who pen irrelevant panegyrics.
The second issue, namely, the right of every person to be defended by a
lawyer of his choice, also is quite important. Every respondent/ defendant/
accused has this fundamental right, however serious the charge against him. It
is in a hazy recognition of this right that the law obliges the state to
provide a defence counsel to anyone accused of murder, if he cannot afford to
engage one himself.
Hazy recognition of a solemn principle because for one thing the counsel so
arranged is often not one of the defendant’s choice and, for another, the state
does not recognise a poor citizen’s right to a counsel at its expense unless he
takes a fellow being’s
life. Even the war criminals arraigned before the Nuremberg tribunal were not denied defence,
in theory at least.
A doctor will not refuse to attend to a man wounded by police fire on the
ground that he is a dacoit, nor is an enemy soldier left to die on the
battlefield. Likewise no lawyer worth his salt will refuse to defend a person
in conflict with the law. No counsel is believed to be a party to, or approver
of, his client’s offence. M. Sleem and Khwaja Sultan were brilliant lawyers
widely acclaimed for their defence skills in murder cases, and they will be
remembered for long for their uprightness and sense of propriety in dealing
with both courts and their clients.
There can be a few legitimate reasons for a lawyer to decline a particular
brief — lack of time, lack of expertise in the relevant branch of the law, the
lawyer’s inability to travel to the place of trial, or the client’s inability
to pay the lawyer’s fees. But the nature of allegations against a person is not
one of fair excuses. The consequences of a lawyer’s declining anyone help in
view of the nature of charges against him can be extremely grave. It can mean
denial of presumption of the accused’s innocence and may amount to condemning a
person without trial.
Already we have seen that poor persons, especially those belonging to
under-privileged communities, cannot find lawyers to defend them in cases based
on belief. If intolerance of this variety grows the cause of justice in Pakistan will
suffer grievous harm. In retrospect, it seems forcing a lawyer of the stature
of Rashid Rizvi to give up a client was not a good idea at all.
Why shouldn’t a lawyer of Aitzaz Ahsan’s rank agree to defend a person
charged with contempt, especially when he happens to have been elected to
parliament by thousands of people and to the prime minister’s office by a
majority of the members of the National Assembly? Whatever Gilani’s political
sins may be, nothing can extinguish his right to the best legal advice he can
find.
Before Aitzaz Ahsan became the target of the black coats’ attack quite a few
people, including some lawyers, had deemed it prudent to criticise Asma
Jahangir for taking up Husain Haqqani’s defence. This is quite an extraordinary
departure from professional ethics.
We had an attorney-general who defended a murder accused before a sessions
judge in Lahore
and another attorney-general-cum-law minister who appeared for a party in a
rent case and before a judge whose status could be altered by him.
Nobody has raised his eyebrows at seeing a former high court chief justice
and another former judge who retired many years ago donning lawyers’ gowns to
defend the killer of Salmaan Taseer. Nobody has questioned Akram Sheikh’s right
to represent a person whose culpability for maligning the government and the
armed forces of Pakistan
both is patently on record and which needs no corroboration.
If Aitzaz Ahsan’s erstwhile followers had any notions about his change of
heart they should have welcomed the fact that after wandering around alien
arenas he had returned to their fold, where he all the time belonged.
Quite obviously, those who take exception to a lawyer’s acceptance of any
brief take a very narrow view of legal counsel’s role. Every lawyer is, or
should consider himself to be, a friend of the court. Contrary to the view
entertained by misguided puritans, a lawyer’s function is not to get a criminal
off the hook, his job is either to help a court determine a person’s guilt
beyond any shadow of doubt or to ensure that a person is not punished for
anything more than what the court, on the basis of evidence led before it, can
find him responsible for.
The role of lawyers in helping courts to dispense justice even-handedly
becomes more than ordinarily important if a defendant is declared guilty before
trial — by policemen who kill their prey instead of hauling him before a
judicial forum, by politicians who condemn suspects to be hanged by lamp posts
without trial, and by media persons who degrade their calling by turning
themselves into judges and prosecutors for selfish interest. In such cases,
lawyers simply cannot disregard their professional ethics. So let all lawyers
follow their own counsel. Tailpiece: The Supreme Court order that the government
should give in writing its pledge not to take action against the military top
brass should cause immense relief in the democratic camp. Any one of its
members can now pray for a written undertaking from the traditional coup-makers
that they will never again sack a democratically elected government and that
too without a show-cause notice.
MY grandfather Lau Yu-Chung learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbour and the subsequent invasion of Hong Kong on Dec 9, 1941 from the local
school principal Mr Wong, who arrived at his door in a panic exclaiming “we’re
going to be next!”
Living in Sandakan, a small port in British North Borneo (now Malaysia), Lau
would spend the next three and a half years hiding from the Imperial Japanese
Army in the interior rainforest, living off yams and what he could barter for
them.
As a Canadian diplomat in Pakistan,
I recently joined the international commemoration of the 10th anniversary of
9/11 in solidarity with victims of terrorism around the world, including the
tens of thousands here in Pakistan.
In Pakistan,
I have come to fully appreciate that sorrow is often better exchanged than
exported. In that spirit, as last month marked the 70th anniversary of Dec 7,
1941, that ‘day of infamy’ that ended in the death of 2,404 Americans at Pearl
Harbour, it is worth recounting that Pearl Harbour also marked the onset of the
Imperial Japanese occupation of Hong Kong and vast parts of Southeast Asia.
Thus I share my grandfather’s story.
In December 1941, my grandfather had been working for a year as a consular
officer for the Chinese Kuomintang government in Sandakan,
Borneo, where the approximately 70,000 ethnic
Chinese made up the majority. As news of the Japanese sweep into Hong Kong and
across Southeast Asia spread, many Sandakan
residents chose to bury their valuables and flee their homes, some for the
thick jungle of the interior, rather than face life under Japanese occupation.
On Jan 19, 1942, 43 days after PearlHarbour, Japanese imperial forces arrived in Sandakan, meeting no
resistance, proving right the local principal Mr. Wong. Before the invasion, Sandakan’s defence forces
numbered 99 volunteers, few of whom had seen any combat. The control of British
North Borneo was important for Japan
due to its strategic location along the South China Sea, guarding the Malacca
Straits to the west and, as in the case of Sandakan,
facing the Philippines
to the east. The area was also rich in natural resources needed to fuel the
Japanese war machine.
Upon arrival, Japanese forces interned the staff of the Chinese consulate,
including the Chinese consul general, who would later be summarily executed,
and my grandfather. Upon release, Lau initially moved his wife and infant son
and daughter into a small hut on a rubber plantation on the outskirts of town,
but it became readily apparent that it would take more to evade surveillance.
Following his friends, Lau hired a boat and took his family 50km upstream to
a small settlement called Labuk, where a handful of Chinese families had
started eking out an existence in hiding.
Soon enough, disguised as an aboriginal, Lau set about clearing land for
cultivation. Experimenting with a variety of crops, Lau achieved the most
success with yams, eventually accumulating enough to barter with aboriginals
for a wooden canoe.
During this time, Lau’s wife gave birth to a third son in the rainforest,
with Lau himself cutting the umbilical cord.
Labuk would not be remote, nor safe enough. Three years after his escape,
hearing allied warplanes overhead, my grandfather and three friends began to
reconnoitre the situation by canoe. As they returned to Labuk, Lau recognised a
Japanese soldier and local policeman waiting for him. A furious pursuit in
canoes ensued, and after an hour of paddling through heavy rainfall, the four
eluded capture and slept the night in the mud.
The next day, Lau returned to Labuk to find that his pregnant wife and two
of his children had been executed by the Japanese officer. Only one of his
children, Kan,
survived — thanks to the heroism of another neighbour.
The fate of my grandfather’s family was not unlike that of so many families
victimised by the Japanese occupation. In fact, my grandfather’s story was so
typical, it was rarely shared with anyone, including myself. I only met him
once as a child, and my mother — who, as a girl, escaped communist China with him
— was reluctant to share much about his life.
Like many Chinese, my mother avoided recounting sad family histories,
particularly given the relentless suffering during the five decades spanning
the civil war, Japanese occupation, Korean War, Great Leap Forward and Cultural
Revolution. It was only after my grandfather’s death that I pieced together his
story from a short article he wrote for an alumni publication and some months
digging through archives.
The importance of commemorating together the events of PearlHarbour and the successive Japanese
occupation of much of Southeast Asia is perhaps instructive for the current
moment in Pakistan.
Especially as Pakistan
lurches from crisis to crisis, the capacity and patience — of Pakistanis and
outsiders alike — to appreciate the suffering of ‘the other’ is critical to
moving forward.
The writer is a Canadian diplomat based in Islamabad. His views do not necessarily
represent those of his government.
Gilani rules out ‘viceroy security’Gilani said that Mansoor
Ijaz has been spitting venom against Pakistan, its establishment and
governments for a long time.
Text2Land.com provides this facility to send sms / text messages to a landline phone using the power of a cellular mobile phone and landing to a landline phone,
Text to landline is a concept under which you send sms / text message from mobile and it automatically converts into the voice message to any landline phone > the text to speech engine converts the text message > than plays it to the recipient over his landline phone.
According to the text to landline service:
"A landline is a phone number that is serviced by a local telephone company and is a fixed connection that uses wires."
Currently this service is available in USA, Canada, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Island and supports these following telecom network / carriers,
The text message is recorded in a female sweet voice and a standard phone call is placed to the desired landline phone number where you wish to send the text message, it asks for permission of the listener whether he wishes to listen the message or not, delivering the senders phone number….
Also the Sprint US customers can choose to send text message to landline in six different celebrities voice impersonators, thus they have a choice to choose the voice from amongst favourite celebrity:
1. Arnold Schwarzenegger
2. President Barack Obama
3. Bill Cosby
4. Joan Rivers
5. Dr. Ruth
6. Rosie Perez
Site further says:
'Can the recipient reply to my Text to Landline message?
Recipients who receive the message live will be offered the opportunity to reply to the text message with a voice recording (this offer will not be made if the call is picked up via an answering machine). You will be able to retrieve the recipient’s voicemail at a number provided to you in a text message announcing that the recipient has replied to your Text to Landline. To listen to the recipient’s voicemail, all you need to do is CALL BACK the phone number on the text message. Your Calling Plan rates will apply for this call.
On your handset you will receive a text message stating “Landline number XXX-XXX-XXXX has sent a reply to your Text to Landline message.” Your Text Messaging price plan charges will apply to this notification.
This is NOT a free service, so pl check with your operator before you start to send sms / text to landline phone in USA / Canada / Puerto Rico / US Virgin Island etc,
Recipient of text to landline message incur no charges to hear the text voice message delivered to his landline phone,
