Tip Sheets by the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M): Foremost Anti-Aging Educational Authority Launches …

Posted on by

Chicago, IL USA (PRWEB) September 23, 2014

Representing over 26,000 physician, scientist, and health practitioner members from 120 nations, The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) is a non-profit medical organization dedicated to the advancement of technology to detect, prevent, and treat aging related disease and to promote research into methods to retard and optimize the human aging process.

The A4M advances its prevailing commitment to consumer outreach by publishing its series of Anti-Aging Tip Sheets, sharing the best anti-aging tips to help enhance the healthy, vital, fit, productive lifespan.

Anti-Aging Essentials, the newest in the A4M Tip Sheet series, presents the scientific evidence demonstrating the diverse health-promoting benefits of the tenets of anti-aging medicine. The A4M Lifestyle Pyramid is a pictorial display of how the tenets of the anti-aging lifestyle may translate into wide-ranging health benefits, including:

Alleviate Arthritis explains the latest research, focusing on how to prevent arthritis. Learn natural remedies for arthritis, including foods in an arthritis diet.

Beware the Chair presents the leading evidence-based health-promoting benefits of physical activity. Defeat at least a dozen diseases with a fitness routine.

Eat to Live shares study data reaffirming that a healthy diet promotes quality of life, and may extend it too. View the Top 10 Anti-Aging Foods.

Comments Dr. Ronald Klatz, A4M President: Since its founding in 1991, the A4M's scientific educational programs have trained over 100,000 medical professionals, and the organization's education and advocacy initiatives have expanded the availability of advanced biotechnologies and leading-edge preventive healthcare throughout the world. We are equally dedicated to public information, as anti-aging medicine is a grass-roots movement that is consumer-driven and patient-centric.

Anti-aging medicine is a clinical specialty is founded on the application of advanced scientific and medical technologies for the early detection, prevention, treatment, and reversal of age-related dysfunction, disorders, and diseases. It is a healthcare model promoting innovative science and research to prolong the healthy lifespan in humans. Healthy aging, successful aging, and similar monikers merely rebrand the original term of anti-aging medicine, a clinical field that was established in 1991 by the physicians of the A4M. The goal of anti-aging medicine is not to merely prolong the total years of an individual's life, but to ensure that those years are enjoyed in a productive and vital fashion. The clinical specialty of anti-aging medicine utilizes diagnostic protocols that are supported by scientific evidence to arrive at an objective assessment upon which effective treatment is assigned. Physicians who dispense anti-aging medical care are concerned with the restoration of optimal functioning of the human bodys systems, organs, tissues, and cells.

Researchers from the Imperial College London (United Kingdom) report that potentially 37 million premature deaths over 15 years may be prevented, simply if people modulated six specific modifiable risk factors. Various countries aim to reduce premature mortality from four main non-communicable diseases (NCDs)-namely cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, cancers, and diabetes. These nations have targeted to reduce these disease incidences by 25% from 2010 levels by 2025. Using country-level data on deaths and risk factors and epidemiological models, the researchers estimate the number of deaths that could be prevented between 2010 and 2025 by reducing the burden of each of the six risk factors to globally-agreed target levels -- tobacco use (30% reduction and a more ambitious 50% reduction), alcohol use (10% reduction), salt intake (30% reduction), high blood pressure (25% reduction), and halting the rise in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes. Overall, the findings suggest that meeting the targets for all six risk factors would reduce the risk of dying prematurely from the four main NCDs by 22% in men and 19% for women in 2025 compared to what they were in 2010. Worldwide, this improvement is equivalent to delaying or preventing at least 16 million deaths in people aged 30-70 years and 21 million in those aged 70 years or older over 15 years. The authors predict that the largest benefits will come from reducing high blood pressure and tobacco use. They calculate that a more ambitious 50% reduction in prevalence of smoking by 2025, rather than the current target of 30%, would reduce the risk of dying prematurely by more than 24% in men and by 20% in women. The study investigators submit that: If the agreed risk factor targets are met, premature mortality from the four main NCDs will decrease to levels that are close to the 2525 target, with most of these benefits seen in low-income and middle-income countries. [Kontis V, Mathers CD, Rehm J, Stevens GA, Shield KD, Bonita R, Riley LM, Poznyak V, Beaglehole R, Ezzati M. Contribution of six risk factors to achieving the 2525 non-communicable disease mortality reduction target: a modelling study. Lancet. 2014 May 2. pii: S0140-6736(14)60616-4.]

Originally posted here:
Tip Sheets by the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M): Foremost Anti-Aging Educational Authority Launches ...

NATO chief says Ukraine cease-fire is 'in name only'

Posted on by

Robert Burns, The Associated Press Published Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:34PM EDT Last Updated Saturday, September 20, 2014 9:54PM EDT

VILNIUS, Lithuania -- NATO's top general said Saturday the two-week-old truce between Ukraine and pro-Russian militants fighting in the country's east is a "ceasefire in name only," and he said that by enabling a free flow of weapons and fighters across the border Russia has made it nearly impossible to determine how many of its troops are operating inside Ukraine.

U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, told a news conference after meeting with NATO military chiefs that he is hopeful about Saturday's announced agreement for creation of a buffer zone between Ukrainian and pro-Russian forces.

The deal reached by representatives of Ukraine, Russia, the Moscow-backed rebels and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe marks an effort to add substance to the Sept. 5 ceasefire agreement that has been frequently broken by clashes.

Breedlove has put the main blame on Russia for the continuing conflict.

"So the situation in Ukraine is not good right now," he said. "Basically we have a ceasefire in name only."

Breedlove said violence levels in Ukraine, including the number of artillery rounds fired in the past few days, are as high as prior to the cease-fire.

Asked about prospects for an acceptable end Sunday to the prolonged stalemate in Kabul over Afghanistan's presidential election, Breedlove sounded an optimistic note, saying NATO officials have spoken with both candidates, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah and former finance minister and World Bank official Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai.

"We believe they are very, very close to forming that unity government (which) we think is very important," Breedlove said.

He said both Abdullah and Ghani Ahmadzai have promised a "quick signature" to a U.S.-Afghan security agreement that would provide the basis for nearly 10,000 American troops to remain in the country after the U.S. and NATO combat missions end in December. The current president, Hamid Karzai, negotiated the deal last year but refused to sign it.

Visit link:

NATO chief says Ukraine cease-fire is 'in name only'

'Normale Leute' vs NSA spying: meet Germany's 'average' data protesters

Posted on by

It's a late Saturday afternoon in the German capital, Berlin, where the iconic Brandenburg Gate is abuzz.

On its eastern side, hundreds of spectators have turned out to watch a summer long-jump competition called Berlin Fliegt.

But on the western side, bordering the Tiergarten Park, about 6000 people have assembled to express their outrage over United States National Security Agency (NSA) spying.

Their anger is palpable

During speeches by politicians and activists, you hear a reoccurring theme: in the year since the spying allegations were revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Germans still do not know the full extent of their own government's cooperation with the NSA.

A small number of the protesters are expats, such as Isabel Cole of the group, American Voices Abroad.

"It's important for citizens not to be under mass surveillance," Cole told DW. "Because mass surveillance means you're treating citizens as suspects in a sweeping way."

Patrick Breyer, a Pirate Party member of the Schleswig-Holstein regional assembly, echoes Cole's sentiment.

From anonymous masks to the cult of Snowden: image is everything

"When we are under constant surveillance, we can't behave as freely as we would otherwise," Breyer said during the event. "Excessive surveillance threatens to deter political protest and activism and also harms the free press, because informants find it more difficult to inform the press when they are under surveillance, and can't rely on anonymity."

Read the original post:

'Normale Leute' vs NSA spying: meet Germany's 'average' data protesters

Posted in NSA

The NSA Helped Israel Blackmail Palestinians

Posted on by

Scores of former members of Israeli military intelligence's very secret and quite elite Unit 8200 have publicly refused to collect information that is "used for political persecution" or "driving parts of Palestinian society against itself." Courteous allies at the NSA, we now know, helped make that spying possible.

The news comes courtesy of the NSA's chief unauthorized biographer, James Bamford, whose three-day Moscow bull session with traitorous notoriety prostitute, Edward Joseph Snowden, was the cover story in last month's issue of WIRED.

Writing Tuesday in the New York Times, Bamford disclosed this alarming new anecdote from his Snowden debrief:

Among his most shocking discoveries, he told me, was the fact that the NSA was routinely passing along the private communications of Americans to a large and very secretive Israeli military organization known as Unit 8200. This transfer of intercepts, he said, included the contents of the communications as well as metadata such as who was calling whom.

Typically, when such sensitive information is transferred to another country, it would first be "minimized," meaning that names and other personally identifiable information would be removed. But when sharing with Israel, the NSA evidently did not ensure that the data was modified in this way.

Mr. Snowden stressed that the transfer of intercepts to Israel contained the communicationsemail as well as phone callsof countless Arab- and Palestinian-Americans whose relatives in Israel and the Palestinian territories could become targets based on the communications. "I think that's amazing," he told me. "It's one of the biggest abuses we've seen."

As of last week, exactly 43 ex-members of Unit 8200many young and active reservists who could theoretically be called again to serve Israel at a moment's noticepassionately agree.

In an act of protest that had been planned well in advance of this summer's brutal bombing campaign in Gaza (which you may have heard killed 2,100 Palestinians and turned Gaza City into the lunar ruins of an ancient alien race), the young members of Unit 8200 drafted a long letter publicly refusing to participate in any further intelligence gathering activities against the Palestinians.

"The Palestinian population under military rule is completely exposed to espionage and surveillance by Israeli intelligence. It is used for political persecution and to create divisions within Palestinian society by recruiting collaborators," the letter says. Adding, "In many cases, intelligence prevents defendants from receiving a fair trial in military courts, as the evidence against them is not revealed."

See original here:

The NSA Helped Israel Blackmail Palestinians

Posted in NSA

Google and Apple Wont Unlock Your Phone, But a Court Can Make You Do It

Posted on by

Silicon Valleys smartphone snitching has come to an end. Apple and Google have promised that the latest versions of their mobile operating systems make it impossible for them to unlock encrypted phones, even when compelled to do so by the government. But if the Department of Justice cant demand that its corporate friends unlock your phone, it may have another option: Politely asking that you unlock it yourself, and letting you rot in a cell until you do.

In many cases, the American judicial system doesnt view an encrypted phone as an insurmountable privacy protection for those accused of a crime. Instead, its seen as an obstruction of the evidence-gathering process, and a stubborn defendant or witness can be held in contempt of court and jailed for failing to unlock a phone to provide that evidence. With Apple and Google no longer giving law enforcement access to customers devices, those standoffs may now become far more common. You can expect to see more cases where authorities are thwarted by encryption, and the result is youll see more requests that suspects decrypt phones themselves, says Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And by requests, I mean demands. As in, you do it or youll be held in contempt of court.

In some cases, the Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination may block such demands, under the argument that forcing defendants to unlock their phone would compel them to testify to their own guilt. But the few cases where suspects have pleaded the Fifth to avoid decrypting a PCthe legal equivalent of a smartphonehave had messy, sometimes contradictory outcomes. This is not a settled question, says James Grimmelmann, a professor at the University of Maryland Law School. And it likely wont be, he says, until more appeals courts or the Supreme Court consider the issue.

Grimmelmann does, however, offer one general guideline for whether a Fifth Amendment argument will keep the cops out of your locked phone and you out of jail: If the police dont know what theyre going to find inside, he says, they cant make you unlock it.

In 2011, for instance, a Florida man identified only as John Doe had two computers and five external hard drives seized in a child pornography investigation. (He was never charged with a crime, so his name was not revealed in court.) Doe had encrypted his drives with TrueCrypt, and took the Fifth to avoid having to unlock them. The court ruled that forcing him to surrender his password and decryption keys would be the same as making him provide self-incriminating testimony, and let him off the hook.

In a Vermont case in 2009, by contrast, a child pornography defendant named Sebastien Boucher made the mistake of allowing police access to his computer following his arrest at the Canadian border. They found child pornography, but after seizing his computer realized the portion of the hard drive containing the incriminating files was encrypted. They demanded Boucher cough up the password. He refused, pleading the Fifth. A judge ruled against him, calling the contents of the computer a foregone conclusion. The police didnt need Bouchers testimony to get the files, in other wordsthey only needed him to stop obstructing access to them.

Not every case is so clear-cut. In 2012, a Colorado district court ruled thatRamona Fricosu, a defendant in a mortgage fraud case, had to surrender the password to her locked laptop after she was heard on a recorded phone call telling her co-defendant husband that the incriminating evidence was encrypted. That call was enough to nullify her Fifth amendment argument. As with Boucher, the judge ruled that she give police access to the files or be held in contempt.

Even if you have a Fifth Amendment right to avoid compelled decryption, you have to be very circumspect in how you behave, warns Grimmelmann. The court may only find in favor of defendants who have been very careful about not talking to law enforcement and who have been very well advised in keeping in their head down.

Depending on where the law settles, it could leave few cases where the Fifth Amendment protects locked phones at all. Former prosecutor and George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr argued in a piece for The Washington Post on Friday that merely confirming that a phone belongs to you and admitting you know the passcode circumvents the Fifth Amendment. If the phones in the suspects hand or in his pocket when the government finds it, thats not going to be hard to show, he wrote. He pointed to the Boucher case. Under the relevant case law, that makes all the difference: Entering in the password no longer raises a Fifth Amendment problem.

Using Apples TouchID to unlock a phone represents another way to compel suspects to open their phone. As defense attorney Marcia Hofmann wrote for WIRED last year, a fingerprint isnt testimony. So demanding a suspect extend their hand allows for no Fifth Amendment defense. Other biometric unlocking mechanisms would be equally vulnerable. We cant invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Hofmann wrote. The courts have decided that this evidence doesnt reveal anything you know.

Original post:

Google and Apple Wont Unlock Your Phone, But a Court Can Make You Do It

Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids

Posted on by

From Berry v. Leslie (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2014):

It was a scene right out of a Hollywood movie. On Aug. 21, 2010, after more than a month of planning, teams from the Orange County Sheriffs Office descended on multiple target locations. They blocked the entrances and exits to the parking lots so no one could leave and no one could enter. With some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupants and demanded to see their barbers licenses. The Orange County Sheriffs Office was providing muscle for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations administrative inspection of barbershops to discover licensing violations.

We first held 19 years ago that conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection, violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. See Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). We reaffirmed that principle in 2007 when we held that other deputies of the very same Orange County Sheriffs Office who participated in a similar warrantless criminal raid under the guise of executing an administrative inspection were not entitled to qualified immunity. See Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007). Today, we repeat that same message once again. We hope that the third time will be the charm.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Its protections apply to commercial premises, as well as to private homes. In general, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant supported by probable cause to effectuate a constitutional search. Indeed, this Court has explained, The basic premise of search and seizure doctrine is that searches undertaken without a warrant issued upon probable cause are `per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendmentsubject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.

One of those limited exceptions involves administrative inspections of closely regulated industries. Because an owner or operator of commercial property has a reduced expectation of privacy in this context, the standard for what may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is correspondingly broader.

To fall within this exception, a warrantless inspection must satisfy three criteria: (1) a `substantial government interest [must] inform[] the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made; (2) the inspection must be necessary to further [the] regulatory scheme; and (3) the statutes inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, [must] provid[e] a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. The regulatory statute must [also] be sufficiently comprehensive and defined such that it limits the discretion of inspecting officers. Where a statute authorizes the inspection but makes no rules governing the procedures that inspectors must follow, the Fourth Amendment and its various restrictive rules apply.

But even when the criteria set forth above are met, to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, an administrative inspection must be appropriately limited in both scope and execution and may not serve as a backdoor for undertaking a warrantless search unsupported by probable cause. Above all, such inspections may never circumvent the Fourth Amendments requirement for reasonableness. In this regard, an administrative screening search must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it.

As detailed earlier, the regulatory framework for barbershop inspections in Florida is embodied in Fla. Stat. 476.184 and its implementing rules. In particular, 476.184 requires all barbershops to have a license issued by the DBPR and directs the Florida Barbers Board to adopt rules governing the operation and periodic inspection of barbershops licensed in Florida. Rule 61G3-19.015(1), Fla. Admin. Code, in turn, provides that the DBPR may conduct inspections biennially on a random, unannounced basis. The regulatory framework, which sets forth who may conduct such inspections, notifies barbers that only the DBPR is so authorized. In this case, no one disputes that the DBPR possesses statutory authority to conduct warrantless inspections of barbershops, nor do the parties assert that the statute authorizing such inspections is constitutionally impermissible.

Instead, the plaintiffs contend that the search of Strictly Skillz, which they allege was undertaken with an inordinate display of force, failed to conform to the Fourth Amendments requirement for reasonableness. Because we have twice held, on facts disturbingly similar to those presented here, that a criminal raid executed under the guise of an administrative inspection is constitutionally unreasonable, we agree.

Unlike previous inspections of Strictly Skillz, which were all conducted by a single DBPR inspector without the aid of law enforcement, the August 21 search was executed with a tremendous and disproportionate show of force, and no evidence exists that such force was justified. Despite the fact that neither OCSO nor the DBPR had any reason to believe that the inspection of Strictly Skillz posed a threat to officer safety, the record indicates that several OCSO officers entered the barbershop wearing masks and bulletproof vests, and with guns drawn; surrounded the building and blocked all of the exits; forced all of the children and other customers to leave; announced that the business was closed down indefinitely; and handcuffed and conducted pat-down searches of the employees while the officers searched the premises. Such a search, which bears no resemblance to a routine inspection for barbering licenses, is certainly not reasonable in scope and execution. Rather, [i]t is the conduct of officers conducting a raid.

Read the rest here:

Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids

Volokh Conspiracy: Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?

Posted on by

Josh Blackman links to an interesting new speech by (retired) Justice Stevens about the Courts campaign finance jurisprudence. Among other things, Justice Stevens argues that there ought to be little protection (or no protection?) for campaign contributions made across state lines. He begins . . .:

In the first sentence of his controlling opinion [in McCutcheon v. FEC] the Chief Justice correctly states that there is no right more basic to our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. 188 L. Ed.2d 468, 482. And in his concluding paragraph he correctly describes that right as the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them. Id., at 507 (Emphases added).

McCutcheons complaint, however, makes it clear that his objection to the federal statute was based entirely on its impairment of his ability to influence the election of political leaders for whom he had no right to vote. He is an Alabama citizen; in the 2012 election cycle he made equal contributions to different candidates, only two of whom were from Alabama. The other thirteen were campaigning in California, Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Of primary significance is the fact that his only complaint about the federal statute was its prohibition against his making contributions in 2014 to candidates in twelve other non-Alabama elections Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Minnesota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

To the best of my knowledge in none of the Courts cases prior to McCutcheon has the Court even mentioned a citizens supposed right to participate in elections in which he or she has no right to vote. It surely has not characterized it as a basic right of unparalleled importance.

Among other things, Justice Stevens draws on Bluman v. FEC, an opinion by Judge Kavanaugh that held that non-resident aliens had no right to make contributions or expenditures about American elections, and that was summarily affirmed (unanimously!) by the Supreme Court.

This is an interesting point, although I am not at all convinced by Justice Stevenss analysis. For a different take, here is an excerpt from Jessica Bulman-Pozens recent article, Partisan Federalism:

Bluman v. FEC: Political Engagement Across State Lines

In recent years, political engagement across state lines has increased dramatically. This engagement is not limited to out-of-state spending for federal representatives, but also extends to state electoral contests and referenda. In the 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, for instance, out-of-state contributions made up a majority of Governor Scott Walkers arsenal and nearly a third of challenger Tom Barretts funds. For South Dakotas 2006 referendum on abortion, a substantial majority of the funds for both sides came from other states. As one commentator puts it: Means of communication, fundraising and also campaigning are becoming nationaland its affecting state and even local races.

Cross-state engagement furnishes powerful evidence of partisan federalism. For one thing, party organizations are among the most active cross-state participants; the Democratic and Republican Governors Associations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into state races in the past decade.261 Party actors recognize the power of the states as platforms for national conflict. But so too do individuals, who get involved directly in out-of-state politics for many reasons. In some cases, a donor might contemplate moving to a different state to take advantage of a new policy or visiting to benefit from the policy during a briefer stay. In other cases, one states decisions may effectively set policy for the entire nation. But in perhaps the largest number of cases, Americans do not stand to benefit immediately or directly from out-of-state political involvement. Instead, they seek to create momentum for a particular policy or political party, to build a real-life example to inform national debate, or simply to take comfort in knowing that their preferences are actual policyand their partisan group is in control somewhere. By channeling money toward states other than their own and embracing the kind of surrogate representation I have explored in Part III, these individuals are enacting partisan federalism.

If we see cross-state political participation, however, it is not because existing federalism doctrine or theory supports the practice. Instead, it is because such activity has been protected as expression under the First Amendment. Today, only Alaska and Hawaii impose any limits on out-of-state contributions, and no state limits out-of-state expenditures. Although the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the states residency-based limits, citing deep suspicions of the motives and wisdom of those who, from outside its borders, wish to remold Alaska, federal courts have rejected, on First Amendment grounds, attempts by other states to impose similar restrictions. Courts have also largely invalidatedas inconsistent with the First Amendmentstate requirements that petition circulators be state residents. While these courts have focused on the expressive dimensions of cross-border contributions and expenditures and have not considered their validity from a federalism perspective, a recent case raises the question of whether such expressive activity undermines American federalism and may accordingly be proscribed. In Bluman v. FEC, a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court took up a loose end left by the Supreme Courts holding in Citizens United v. FEC: whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. In a decision summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court, the court upheld a provision of federal law that prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures in connection with federal, state, or local elections. The court reasoned that the case did not turn on the First Amendment questions that have dominated campaign finance jurisprudence but rather a foundational question about the definition of the American political community. It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community, the court maintained, that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. Recognizing political contributions and expenditures as integral to electoral processes, the court proceeded to define them as both speech and participation in democratic self-government. Accordingly, it reasoned, limitations on foreign contributions and expenditures are all part of the sovereigns obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community.

More here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?

MazaCoin: The First Native American Cryptocurrency (Documentary) | Mashable – Video

Posted on by


MazaCoin: The First Native American Cryptocurrency (Documentary) | Mashable
Can Bitcoin solve poverty on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation? Payu Harris thinks so. The South Dakota entrepreneur is trying to convince his tribe, the Ogl...

By: Mashable

View original post here:

MazaCoin: The First Native American Cryptocurrency (Documentary) | Mashable - Video