Exclusive Interview: NSA whistleblower on what he'd do differently now

Posted on by

WASHINGTON, May 7 (UPI) -- The high-profile cases of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have turned a microscope onto the U.S. intelligence community, launching a serious discussion on the balance of civil liberties in a post-9/11 world.

Secondary to Snowden and Manning's revelations, but perhaps no less important, was the treatment of the whistleblowers themselves: Snowden lives exiled, and without a passport, in Russia, while Manning faces 35 years in federal prison. Both saw grievous abuses within the U.S. government that they felt must be revealed, and both paid for their consciences with their freedom.

Thomas Drake, a former NSA executive, was more fortunate. Drake witnessed what he said were privacy and Fourth Amendment violations, as well as a massive waste of funding on the Trailblazer project, which collected intelligence data off the Internet. He initially took his concerns to internal authorities, including the NSA Inspector General and the Defense Department Inspector General, then to the staff of the House Intelligence and Oversight Committees. He also passed his concerns on to a reporter at the Baltimore Sun, carefully avoiding divulging classified information.

In 2007, Drake's home was raided by the FBI, in 2010, he was indicted by a grand jury and charged with illegally holding sensitive information, obstruction of justice and making a false statement. All along, he refused to plead guilty or help the government prosecute fellow whistleblowers.

The 10 charges filed against him under the Espionage Act were ultimately dropped, in exchange for a guilty plea on a misdemeanor count of misusing the NSA's computer system.

Drake has since worked as a privacy activist, speaking out against the surveillance state. In an interview with UPI this week, he talked about what it takes to blow the whistle on the U.S. government and just how difficult it is to do.

(This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

UPI: What would you have done differently?

Drake: I would not have spoken with the FBI at all. I was speaking to them to report high crimes and misdemeanors; I was expecting them to come to my house for quite some time. I would have hired an attorney sooner.

Even though I made a conscious choice [to go through the proper channels], I didn't have to. Under the NSA portion [of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act], I could go directly to the Department of Defense or directly to Congress and not inform the NSA. That was the statute that you would exercise if you had a responsible belief as a whistleblower. Now there's huge cutout: Any national security position is not covered by that act.

Read more:

Exclusive Interview: NSA whistleblower on what he'd do differently now

Posted in NSA

NSA's coded tweet deciphered — read what it says

Posted on by

No, the National Security Agency's Twitter account was not drunk last night.

A Twitter account run by the NSA's recruitment office sent out a coded tweet on Monday with the hashtag #MissionMonday, sending the Internet abuzz with speculation over what the message meant.

The NSA account tweeted: "tpfccdlfdtte pcaccplircdt dklpcfrp?qeiq lhpqlipqeodf gpwafopwprti izxndkiqpkii krirrifcapnc dxkdciqcafmd vkfpcadf."

Twitter user @DanielShealey says he deciphered the message, which reads: "Want to know what it takes to work at NSA? Check back each month to explore careers essential to protect in your nation."

This isn't the first coded message tweeted out by the recruitment office. In February, a similar coded tweet was posted in honor of Presidents Day. According to the Washington Post, the tweet uses a substitution cipher that swaps letters of the alphabet with another.

A spokesperson for the NSA told CBS News via email that the Twitter feed is focused on career opportunities at the agency, and released this statement:

NSA is known as the code makers and code breakers. As part of our recruitment efforts to attract the best and the brightest, we will post mission related coded tweets on Mondays in the month of May. Today's Tweet announces this effort - Every Monday in May, we'll explore careers essential to protecting our nation. #NSA #news #MissionMonday

Code-breaking mysteries aren't new to the Internet. One of the most bizarre unsolved mysteries on the Web, Cicada 3301, involves ciphers, cryptography and number theory.

2014 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

See more here:

NSA's coded tweet deciphered -- read what it says

Posted in NSA

House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt

Posted on by

Lois Lerner, former director of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division at the Internal Revenue Service, exercises her Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill on March 5. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON - The Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions related to the agency's undue scrutiny of certain tax-exempt groups.

The vote to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress was 231-187, with all Republicans voting in favor and all but a few Democrats voting against.

It's now up to a local U.S. attorney to consider criminal charges against Lerner. The Justice Department, however, has ignored past contempt charges against executive branch officials, including contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder.

While the vote may have no practical impact, it does up the ante in the political bout between Democrats and Republicans over the IRS scandal.

Republicans maintain they are determined to get to the bottom of the scandal and find out why IRS officials, starting in 2010, unfairly targeted groups for their political activity.

"All we're doing as Article One is saying an employee of Article Two, the executive branch, didn't properly assert her rights," House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., explained to his congressional colleagues Tuesday night in a meeting of the House Rules Committee. "We want Article Three, the federal court, to decide whether or not... we should be entitled to answers to some of our questions. ... Nothing could be less partisan than, in fact, to let the federal court decide."

In addition to holding Lerner in contempt, the House also voted 250-168 to approve a resolution calling on Holder to appoint a special counsel to investigate the IRS targeting.

Democrats have dismissed the GOP's aggressive pursuit of this issue as a partisan witch-hunt. They've noted that multiple investigations into the IRS have already been launched, including an ongoing Justice Department investigation. Democrats have also stressed that the IRS inappropriately targeted both conservative and liberal groups, while pointing to evidence showing the misconduct wasn't politically motivated.

On top of all that, Democrats assert there is no basis for the contempt charge.

Follow this link:

House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt

House holds Lois Lerner in contempt

Posted on by

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

Continued here:

House holds Lois Lerner in contempt

House votes to hold ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress

Posted on by

The 231-187 contempt vote came three days shy of the date when Lerner apologized at a legal conference last year for actions the IRS took against organizations with tea party and patriot in their names. Her comments marked the first time the agency officially acknowledged using inappropriate screening techniques toward conservative groups.

Days after the event, an inspector general released a report saying the IRS inappropriately targeted tax-exemption applicants for extra scrutiny based on their names and policy positions.

The House voted 250-168 in favor of the measure calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who pushed for the move last week, has said the IRSs actions are too serious a matter to leave to the discretion of partisan political appointees.

The contempt resolution asks the Justice Department to seek criminal prosecution against Lerner.

Now the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia can consider referring the matter to a grand jury for further review. It is unclear how the Justice Department will proceed.

Lerners attorney, William Taylor, has repeatedly denied that his client did anything wrong. Todays vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law, he said in a statement. Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS conspiracy alive through the midterm elections.

Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the matter, have argued that Congress cannot legally hold Lerner, who retired from the IRS in September, in contempt because the panel never explicitly overruled her Fifth Amendment assertion or clearly directed her to testify with the threat of contempt.

Republicans counter that the committee effectively overruled Lerners refusal to testify when it voted in favor of a resolution saying she waived her Fifth Amendment right by declaring innocence during the first hearing. They say the committee also warned her that she could face contempt charges for refusing to answer questions at a follow-up hearing in March.

Before Wednesdays vote, the House oversight committees top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), urged GOP lawmakers to allow a hearing to discuss the contempt matter with independent legal experts. He said in a statement Wednesday that Republicans took a step backwards in their duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution by voting to strip an American citizen of her Fifth Amendment rights.

The panels chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), described Wednesdays contempt vote as a step toward a level of accountability that the Obama administration has been unwilling to take.

Read the original:

House votes to hold ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress

House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt

Posted on by

Acting on a conservative battle cry and potentially triggering a court battle with the Obama administration, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about her agency's targeting of conservative and other groups.

The 231-187 vote fell almost entirely along party lines, a decision that cut across three sharp divides: balance of power issues between the branches of government, political questions over the IRS scandal, and a Constitutional debate over Lerner's individual Fifth Amendment rights.

Lerner is in the middle of that trio. Until she retired last year, she ran the IRS division in charge of tax exempt status. An inspector general's report concluded her staff had inappropriately targeted Tea Party and other groups for extra scrutiny.

The term "progressive" was also flagged but the inspector general report indicated that conservative terms drew more attention from the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment question

For nearly a year, Lerner has refused House requests to testify on the matter, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Republicans insist that doesn't apply here, that she waived the right by first asserting her innocence when she appeared before the House Oversight Committee last May.

"Mrs. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her right to remain silent," proclaimed Rep. Richard Nugent, Republican of Florida, as he opened up Wednesday's debate. "You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth Amendment right."

Lerner's attorney, William Taylor, has dismissed that argument repeatedly and sent a statement rejecting it again Wednesday.

"Today's vote has nothing to do with the facts or the law," Taylor wrote. "Its only purpose is to keep the baseless IRS "conspiracy" alive through the midterm elections. Ms. Lerner has not committed contempt of Congress. She did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights by proclaiming her innocence."

More here:

House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt

I-Team: Do police seek search warrant friendly judges?

Posted on by

LAS VEGAS -- Could police be playing favorites when it comes to getting search warrants signed by local magistrates? An I-Team investigation shows one judge has signed nearly twice as many warrants this year, as any other judge.

The Fourth Amendment prevents police from entering your home or seizing your property without obtaining a warrant signed by an impartial magistrate.

But one expert the I-Team spoke with questions whether judges with strong ties to law enforcement can truly be impartial. Why do certain judges sign lots of warrants for police, while other sign hardly any.

Law enforcement officers went to Las Vegas Justice Court for search warrants more than 2,000 times last year. Each warrant has to be signed by a judge whose job it is to impartially review the facts before approving it. But can a judge who's married to a police officer be impartial when signing warrants for that officer's department?

A judge has to be neutral and detached and somebody who is married to a police office is not neutral and detached. Period, said John Wesley Hall, a Fourth Amendment expert.

Hall is a lawyer who runs a Fourth Amendment blog and wrote reference books on search and seizure law. He is referring to Judge Melanie Andress-Tobiasson who is married to a career Metro officer who retired last summer. When the I-Team asked Las Vegas Justice Court for numbers on how many warrants were signed by each magistrate Andress-Tobiassons name was at the top of the list.

She signed the greatest number of warrants by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 over the judge with the next highest figure.

I-Team reporter Glen Meek: Do you think the fact that your husband was a career Metro officer tends to prompt police to call you more often for a search warrant?

Tobiasson: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And I can tell you, though he's retired now probably most of the officers on the department don't even know my husband.

If police seek certain judges for warrants and not others it can create the appearance of judge shopping. It's not illegal, but it can make the process seem unfair and begs the question of why police should favor some judges over others.

Follow this link:

I-Team: Do police seek search warrant friendly judges?

Second Amendment – Laws

Posted on by

A Guide to the Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.The Text of the Second AmendmentThere are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."What Does the Second Amendment Mean?The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment. Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities.Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns.The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities.These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.Shall not be infringed:The Second Amendment does not grant any right to bear arms. Furthermore, the rest of the Bill of Rights does not describe any right to do so. These rights are thought of as natural rights or God-given rights.In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is just a reminder to the government that they should not try to stop people from having this right.

A Guide to the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.

The Text of the Second Amendment

There are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment.

Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities. Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns. The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities. These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.

Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.

See the original post:

Second Amendment - Laws

Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

Posted on by

Originally published May 7, 2014 at 7:05 PM | Page modified May 8, 2014 at 12:02 AM

History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.

Last week, I wrote that weve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. Thats certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendments history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)

One theme that ran through comments supportive of unrestricted gun-ownership rights was that it is necessary for individuals to own guns to protect themselves against both crime and the U.S. government, and that the framers of the Constitution intended for the amendment to protect that individual right.

Thats a new way of reading the amendment.

I heard from Michael Schein, an attorney who handles appeals and who taught American legal history for 15 years at the University of Puget Sound and Seattle University.

Dont blame the framers, he wrote. For 217 years, the law under the 2nd Amendment was that it only protected possession or use of a firearm by well-regulated militia forces. ... It contained no right of personal self-defense until 2008, when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote brought that interpretation to its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which limited the Districts gun-regulation law.

Wednesday I called Schein, and we talked about the amendments history and current interpretation. Its heavily politicized and wrapped up in peoples emotions, so its difficult to get to the facts underlying it in any objective way, he said.

The Constitution was written to create a more effective federal government, but some people worried the government would trample on the rights of states and individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to mollify them and make ratification of the Constitution possible. Some were particularly concerned that the federal government would form a standing army, and they wanted assurances that state militias would be in a position to fight against such an army if it came to that.

James Madison was tasked with drafting the amendments. Some of the states had asked for a personal right in one amendment, but he didnt include that. Instead he used a version of Virginia law that dealt with militias.

Read the original:

Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

Chucking the First Amendment: Schumers cranky scheme

Posted on by

Call it the Charles Schumer Anti-First-Amendment Act of 2014. Its the bill our senior senator promises to bring to the floor by the years end. Schumer wants to put a dagger through the heart of the Bill of Rights.

He embraced this brainstorm at a Senate Rules Committee hearing last week. He said hed work to pass a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to restrict the peoples freedom to finance elections.

Whats so fascinating about this is that it puts a senator from New York in the league of the cranks. It reminds me of the billboards Impeach Earl Warren, put up by those who couldnt abide the Supreme Courts decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The high court decisions Schumer doesnt like are the recent ones known as McCutcheon and Citizens United.

In McCutcheon, the justices threw out a law that capped the total amount of money a person could donate to various campaigns. In Citizens United, the court let a not-for-profit group distribute a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton, even though she was running for president. In effect, the ruling let labor unions, not-for-profit groups and corporations participate in the public debate at election time.

The two rulings have produced among Democrats a petulance not seen in their party in years. One would have to go back to the 1960s, when another Democrat, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, vowed to stand in the schoolhouse door to block the Supreme Courts integration decisions.

The comparison is not that Schumer is a racist (hes not). Its that the resistance to the court is similar. Particularly since Citizens United, which was handed down in 2010, didnt hamper the Democrats ability to re-elect President Obama by a wide margin.

Yet Democrats still want to gut the First Amendment. Its the one that guarantees freedom of religion, speech and the press, as well as the right to petition the government and peaceably assemble. Citizens United strengthened every one of those freedoms.

The measure Schumer embraced last week was hatched by another unhappy Democrat, Sen. Thomas Udall of New Mexico. It would let Congress block people from deciding how much of their money to contribute to political advocacy during campaign season.

Its not just the federal government the Schumer amendment would unleash against people. Its also state governments, a point that was made by Udall. The amendment being planned would allow the regulation of not just partisan spending but even independent spending.

Schumer is trying to palm off the idea that his scheme wouldnt limit freedom of the press. No, it instead would unleash Congress and state governments to go directly after voters and other citizens. Its hard to recall a more cynical measure having been laid before Congress.

Continued here:

Chucking the First Amendment: Schumers cranky scheme

Letter: First Amendment rights trampled

Posted on by

I am writing about Donald Sterlings right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

What the media is doing to Sterling is a classic example of what happens when the billion-dollar, tax-exempt 501 (c)3 left-wing special interest groups and liberal Hollywood, sports and media personalities take a non-event, comments a man said in confidence to his girlfriend, and make them the number one story on the national, local and Hollywood entertainment news to advance their ideology.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Or, use your linked account:

Need an account? Create one now.

Or, use your linked account:

kAm%96 A6@A=6 4@>A=2:?:?8 23@FE $E6C=:?8D 4@>>6?ED :8?@C65 $E6C=:?8D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED[ G:@=2E65 9:D AC:G24J 2?5 4@?G6?:6?E=J 7@C8@E 96 H2D 92G:?8 2 AC:G2E6 4@?G6CD2E:@?[ ?@E :?E6?565 7@C AF3=:4 4@?DF>AE:@?] w:D 4@>>6?ED H6C6 :==682==J C64@C565 2?5 C6=62D65 E@ E96 >65:2 7@C E96 D@F= AFCA@D6 @7 A6CD64FE:?8 9:>] (63DE6CD 567:?:E:@? 😀 E@ 277=:4E 4@?DE2?E=J D@ 2D E@ :?;FC6 @C 5:DEC6DD[ 6DA64:2==J 7@C C62D@?D @7 C6=:8:@?[ A@=:E:4D @C C246] %9:D 😀 6I24E=J H92E E96 >65:2 2C6 5@:?8]k^Am

kAm%9:D 😀 ;FDE 2?@E96C 6I2>A=6 @7 E96 =:36C2= DA64:2= :?E6C6DE 8C@FAD :?E:>:52E:?8 3FD:?6DD @H?6CD[ ;FDE =:<6 E96J :?E:>:52E6 A@=:E:4:2?D @C 4@6C46 4:G:4 =6256CD E@ 4@?5@?6 @C 2446AE 46CE2:? EJA6D @7 3692G:@C @C :56@=@8J] x7 J@F 5@?E 28C66 H:E9 E96>[ E96J =236= J@F 2 C24:DE[ D6I:DE @C 3:8@E] p=E9@F89 $E6C=:?8 92D 4@>>:EE65 ?@ 4C:>6[ 96 H2D 7:?65 Sa]d >:==:@?[ 32??65 7@C =:76 2?5 >256 E@ D6== 9:D E62>] yFDE :>28:?6 H92E E96J 4@F=5 5@ E@ J@F :7 J@F 5@?E 8@ 2=@?8 H:E9 E96:C 286?52]k^Am

kAm%96 A6CD64FE:@? @7 $E6C=:?8 2?5 @E96CD[ =:<6 !9:= #@36CED@? @7 sF4< sJ?2DEJ[ 7@C 6I6C4:D:?8 E96:C 7C665@> @7 DA6649[ D9@F=5 36 @7 8C62E 4@?46C? E@ A6@A=6] (92E 5:C64E:@? 😀 E9:D 4@F?ECJ 962565 H96? @?=J E96 =:36C2= >65:2 564:56 H92E 😀 2446AE23=6 2?5 H92E 😀 ?@E]k^Am

kAm%9C@F89@FE 9:DE@CJ A6@A=6 92G6 366? A6CD64FE65 3642FD6 E96J E9:?< 7@C E96>D6=G6D 2?5 92G6 ?@E 8@?6 2=@?8 H:E9 E96 A@=:E:42= 4@CC64E?6DD @7 E96 D6=7AC@4=2:>65 A@E6?E2E6D @7 E96 52J]k^Am

Continue reading here:

Letter: First Amendment rights trampled

News outlets say US drone ban breaches First Amendment

Posted on by

A coalition of more than a dozen news outlets is telling the Obama administration that its ban on the commercial use of dronesand "drone journalism" in generalgoes against the First Amendment.

"This overly broad policy, implemented through a patchwork of regulatory and policy statements and an ad hoc cease-and-desist enforcement process, has an impermissible chillingeffect on the First Amendment newsgathering rights of journalists," the media told the National Transportation Safety Board.

The filing was submitted in a Federal Aviation Administration appeal to a National Transportation Safety Board administrative judge's ruling that said the FAA illegally adopted the ban on the commercial use of small drones, and therefore the 2007 regulations are unenforceable.

Tuesday's filing comes four days after the National Park Service announced a rule barring all drone flights from Yosemite, a regulation that experts said was legally questionable.

Regulators' attacks on the commercial use of drones have included everything from drone journalism to a nonprofit search-and-rescue outfit using drones.

The media groups signing on to the filing include Advance Publications (the owner of Cond Nast, Ars Technica's parent company), The Associated Press, Cox Media Group, Gannett, Gray Television, Hearst, McClatchy, the National Press Photographers Association, the National Press Club, The New York Times, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Radio-Television Digital News Association, Scripps Media, Sinclair Broadcast Group, the Tribune Company, and The Washington Post.

In response, the FAA said the administrative law judge's earlier decision puts in jeopardy "the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground."

Here is the original post:

News outlets say US drone ban breaches First Amendment

cryptocurrency – Fortune Finance: Hedge Funds, Markets …

Posted on by

By David Z. Morris

Auroracoin and Berkshares

FORTUNE -- In the past two months, programmers and activists have launched a wave of national cryptocurrencies systems inspired by Bitcoin, and affiliated with various specific nations and communities. These include MazaCoin, from an American Indian group, Spaincoin, and Auroracoin, from Iceland. More national cryptocurrencies are coming, including Aphroditecoin, targeted at Cyprus and planned to launch April 21st.

It's no coincidence that the most prominent national cryptocurrencies have emerged from landscapes of financial turmoil. The engineers and promoters of these cryptocurrencies are often motivated by the same resistance to central monetary institutions as the libertarian anti-Federal Reserve types that formed an important constituency among the first wave of Bitcoin adopters. Aphroditecoin's homepage declares that it will help Cypriots "break the shackles of a fiat currency," while Spaincoin's slogan is "Freedom for the Spanish People."

Eurozone citizens have more obvious justification for resenting their national monetary and financial systems than Americans. The collapse of Iceland's overextended banks in 2008 and 2009 led to the nationalization of bad debts worth more than eight times national GDP, triggered runaway inflation, and cratered the foreign exchange value of the currency, necessitating strict foreign exchange controls that largely remain in place today. The euro crisis of 2011-2013 led to extreme measures such as the "bail-in" of Cypriot banks through the seizure of deposits just last Spring.

MORE: Heartbleed: The bug that rocked the foundations of the web

Then there's MazaCoin, which claims affiliation with the Oglala Lakota Nation. As with many sovereign American Indian tribes, a legacy of exploitation and marginalization has left the Lakota in a state of persistent, extreme poverty, and Mazacoin cites "economic sustainability" and "lasting wealth and prosperity" among its overriding goals.

The idea of nongovernmental regional currencies is not new. In the United States alone, there are currently several local currencies that use old-fashioned paper money, including the Philadelphia equal dollar, Detroit cheers, and Ithaca hours, a system in place since 1991 (no law prohibits the introduction of private paper currency systems in the U.S., though minting coins for currency purposes is illegal). Emerging national cryptocurrencies may have something to learn from these local analogprojects.

One of the most vibrant local currencies currently operating in the U.S. is the Berkshare, launched in 2005 by the Schumacher Center for a New Economics and serving the Berkshires region in Western Massachussetts. Alice Maggio, local currency program director of the Berkshares program, says that the goals of the currency are to increase the capital base of the region and provide democratically-driven loans for local development.

Berkshares are distributed through local banks in a one-for-one exchange for U.S. dollars, and the dollar deposits are distributed as loans to local businesses. More than $5 million dollars have been traded in for Berkshares since 2005, and about $135,000 dollars' worth of Berkshares are currently in circulation, adding to local banks' available capital. In a region of only 19,000 residents, even such a relatively small expansion of the money supply could have a meaningful growth impact.

Read the original:

cryptocurrency - Fortune Finance: Hedge Funds, Markets ...

Andreas M. Antonopoulos – L.A. Bitcoin Meetup – "Currency Creates Sovereignty" – Part 3 of 4 – Video

Posted on by


Andreas M. Antonopoulos - L.A. Bitcoin Meetup - "Currency Creates Sovereignty" - Part 3 of 4
After visiting Dorian Nakamoto and before appearing on the Joe Rogan Experience, Andreas M. Antonopoulos visits the Los Angeles Bitcoin Meetup. Filmed April ...

By: reXBT

Read the original:

Andreas M. Antonopoulos - L.A. Bitcoin Meetup - "Currency Creates Sovereignty" - Part 3 of 4 - Video

Living on Bitcoin: The Sequel — Big Brains Bullish on Bitcoin — Reddcoin Tip Platform – Video

Posted on by


Living on Bitcoin: The Sequel -- Big Brains Bullish on Bitcoin -- Reddcoin Tip Platform
LAST DAY --- Vote MadBitcoins: https://blog.blockchain.com/2014/04/16/the-first-annual-blockchain-awards/ Join the MadBitcoins Patreon for behind the scenes content! Subscribe for as low...

By: MadBitcoins

Continued here:

Living on Bitcoin: The Sequel -- Big Brains Bullish on Bitcoin -- Reddcoin Tip Platform - Video