OPINION | Trump’s climate change censorship puts us all at risk – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpColbert questions Trump: What's tougher than 'fire and fury'? Trump's DC hotel exceeds expectations making M so far in 2017 Graham on North Korea: 'If we have to, we'll go to war' MOREs attempts to undermine the First Amendment are undoubtedly troubling. But his attacks on the First Amendment are only part of the story. Trump is also stifling unbiased data and research that is coming from his own administration, and that is even more worrisome than his ongoing fake news crusade.

Silencing dissent and basic scientific data and research, all in the name politics, is behavior fit for a dictatorship, not a democracy, and Congress should act immediately to protect research and data, as well as whistle-blowers who are sounding the alarm on Trumps censorship, before its too late.

This week it was reported that the Department of Agriculture stopped using the term climate change and has been instructed to use the term weather extremes instead. Further, the USDA had to replace the phrase reduce greenhouse gases with the completely ambiguous build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency. Were in the middle of the second hottest year on record and the president wont let the federal government talk about it in words that actual humans can understand.

Government scientists fear Trump will suppress climate change study: report https://t.co/U3RR9Edsqm pic.twitter.com/bieBBNbpgl

In fact, one of Trumps first actions as president was to gag employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health and Human Services agencies that are responsible for informing the public about climate change from publishing press releases, blog posts, or otherwise publicizing upcoming public events. The employees at these agencies were informed that they could not even send correspondence to other public officials and instead would have to go through senior officials who were reportedly instructed to wait until they received instructions from the White House.

President Trumps climate censorship extends to the Department of Energy and the State Department, too. In March it was reported that a supervisor at the DOEs Office of International Climate and Clean Energy instructed staff not to use the phrases climate change, emissions reduction, or Paris Agreement," while just this week it was reported Secretary of State, and former ExxonMobil CEO, Rex TillersonRex Wayne TillersonChuck Todd: Gorka a menace to other staff White House aide insists he was criticizing 'fake news' journalists, not Tillerson State responds to Gorka, says Tillerson carries a 'big stick' MORE, told U.S. diplomats to give vague answers about re-entering the Paris Agreement. How can we join with our allies around the world to address one of the biggest global threats we face if we cant even discuss it?

Trump's Agriculture Department telling staffers to stop using the term "climate change" https://t.co/6cUFX2Cg39 pic.twitter.com/OY4sUrrl5W

Clearly, scientists share this fear because a draft of a comprehensive climate change report written by scientists from 13 federal agencies was leaked out of fear that Trump would try to suppress the findings. The report provides some of the strongest evidence to date that humans are primarily responsible for rising global temperatures since 1951 and therefore must immediately take large-scale corrective action. This finding stands in stark contrast to President Trump and the climate-change skeptics Scott Pruitt and Rick PerryJames (Rick) Richard PerryOPINION | Trumps climate change censorship puts us all at risk Five takeaways from the federal climate report Dems face fundamental problem in Texas: Getting people to vote MORE he has put in charge of the EPA and Department of Energy, respectively, who argue human impact is minimal-to-non-existent.

The Trump administration's concerted climate censorship attack is a threat to our standing in the world, our preparedness to deal with a global crisis, and to our economy. A study by a team of scientists and economists published in the June 30th edition of "Science," the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, found, essentially, "the warmer it gets, the bigger the hit to the economy" and if global warming continues unchecked it could result in up to six points off of the United States' gross domestic product by the end of the century.

Trump's EPA head casts doubt on "supposed threat" of climate change https://t.co/1NAZQpbSM5 pic.twitter.com/Qk8v1PZo7Z

The study predicts that the hardest hit regions in the United States will be the South and the Midwest, which could reportedly face "huge damage to their local economies, due to enormous electric bills, dying crops, or mass migration away from the area, a warning that we cannot in good conscience ignore.

If left unchecked, Trump will continue to use censorship to remake the federal government in his own distorted image. We cannot let that happen, and every American has a responsibility to speak out against these reckless attacks on science, research, and transparency.

That starts with Congress, who has a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on the Executive Branch, particularly when it comes to partisan overreach. They should act to protect researchers and scientists who should be able to work independently of political interference. Research shouldnt be politicized and scientific findings shouldnt be silenced to serve a presidents partisan agenda.

Emily Aden is the rapid response director of American Bridge, a progressive research and communications organization. Follow her on Twitter @emad16.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read the original here:

OPINION | Trump's climate change censorship puts us all at risk - The Hill (blog)

The virtue of free speech – Times-Enterprise

Posted on by

The thing about free speech is how often its just plain wrong wrongheaded, factually wrong, deceitful, even. Thats always been true.

And there have always been two schools of thought about what you do about it. One is that you pronounce yourself, or like-minded others, to be the ruler of the universe, and you only allow people to say, write and broadcast what you agree with.

Those who dont are vilified and punished; they lose their jobs and their reputations.

When this happens in other countries, we call it totalitarianism. Dictatorship. Censorship.

Lately, when it happens here, we call it Tuesday. Thats how often, how routine its become at universities, at private companies, big and small. No need to name names.

With classes starting soon, professors are being warned that our lectures might be recorded and, if we say something impolitic, released to the world. I remember all those years teaching criminal-law classes: Whenever I first introduced the topic of rape, I would vigorously take the side of the rapist to ensure all sides were presented. What would happen to me today? Would I be punished for not giving trigger warnings before I told my own story? Or for taking the wrong side in the debate? How lucky that Im on leave.

Of course, our Founding Fathers had a different idea. They knew the danger of punishing speech because you disagree with it.They understood that the answer to speech that is wrong, wrongheaded, hateful or unpatriotic (not to mention unscientific) is not less speech but more speech; not censorship but an open market of ideas; not dictatorship but democracy.

I am not talking about speech that incites violence, speech that preaches hatred and killing, speech that poses a clear and present danger.

Im talking about speech that raises questions that we only talk about in private for fear that someones head will be chopped off.

When Harvard President Lawrence Summers a great mind, love him or hate him wondered whether there might be some biological explanation for the underrepresentation of women in math and science, he was, very soon thereafter, no longer president of Harvard.

But guess what? The problem did not disappear. Firing Larry Summers did not open up the floodgates for women. It just shut down the debate.

A whole lot of good that did.

Worse than no good. If you want to trigger backlash, if you want to leave people thinking precisely what you dont want them to think, shut down the debate. Tell them they have no right to think that. Meet their argument not with a counter-argument but with a delete key and a pink slip.

As if that will further understanding. As if that will make things better. As if that will encourage open and honest dialogue.

Not that I blame the supervisors who quake when they see such posts. Leave them unanswered and, whoosh, youre vulnerable to accusations that youve tolerated, if not created, a hostile environment for women, or for men, or for someone.

This is not what we spent a lifetime fighting for. It was to encourage debate about equality, not squelch it, in the hopes that open dialogue would lead to action and change. It was to encourage leaders such as Maria Klawe, the president of Harvey Mudd College, to educate more women to take those high-paying STEM jobs, if thats what they want or to go off and cure diseases in Africa, if thats what they want. Maybe the reason that there arent more women in those engineering jobs is because women have more important, if less lucrative, things to do. But well never know if we cant even talk about it.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

See the original post here:

The virtue of free speech - Times-Enterprise

Canadian Google crackdown illustrates need to protect free speech online – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

In 1996, the internet activist and former Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow famouslydeclaredto the governments of the world that they would have no sovereignty in cyberspace. Two decades later, it's certainly true that the internet has made the world much more interconnected. But rather than fulfilling Barlows utopian vision for cyberspace independence, national governments are finding new ways to assert their jurisdiction over the global internet. Weve already seen this jurisdiction creep with the European Unions right to be forgotten. And now its happening again.

In its JuneGoogle v. Equustekdecision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a British Columbia court ruling ordering Google to remove entire domains and websites from its global search index, which would block access to that information on a global scale, regardless of users locations and nationalities. In the case, B.C.-based Equustek Solutions accused distributor Datalink Technology Gateways of selling counterfeit products and requested that Google delist the website selling these goods from its search results. At issue was the geographic scope of delisting, for which the Supreme Court granted a globally enforced injunction against Google, even though Google was never a party to the underlying suit.

TheEquustekcase is not the first attack on the integrity and freedom of the internet. In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized EU citizens rights to request information about them be removed from search engine results when it is either inaccurate, inadequate or no longer relevant or when it is excessive in relation to the "purposes for which they were processed," and when sufficient time has elapsed.

However, in the EU case, the underlying content remained intact on the internet. French authorities pushed the matter one step further in June 2015, when the French national data-protection authoritydemandedGoogle to apply delisting to all versions of its search engine. The authoritys rationale was that removing links only from European versions of Googles websites did not sufficiently protect the right to be forgotten, since readers could still access non-EU versions.

From a legal perspective, there are inherent limitations to any countrys jurisdiction. Permitting global application of domestic laws against private entities would lead dangerously toward over-enforcement and political chaos. While countries like Canada, France and Spain largely share the values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, many others do not. What if an authoritarian regime sought to delist or censor LGBT websites, or ban news articles criticizing its head of state? Such legal fragmentation could only result in a race to the bottom. In the end, multinational service providers will have no choice but to surrender. The internet could end up only as free and democratic as the worst laws of the most repressive countries.

From an ethical perspective, its not clear that the values of privacy and self-determination ought to outweigh those of transparency and free expression by default. Rather, there should be an interest-balancing process on a case-by-case basis. For instance, in the EUs first right-to-be-forgotten case, the Spanish Data Protection Authority dismissed plaintiff Mario Costeja Gonzlezs complaint against a local newspaper after concluding that public interest favored accurate disclosures in a real estate auction over the plaintiffs privacy interests.

It's also important to understand that privacy expectations and levels of openness vary among countries, cultures and even generations. Todays sensitive data may have different interpretations tomorrow. Rather than removing information, the best option to promote continuous dialogue and innovation is to sustain and add even more content to cyberspace. For example, online service providers could enable people to annotate information related to themselves, or indicate that this is a disputed result or that this has been invalidated by a court, which would keep users informed and alert. Wikipedia adopted such measures to ensure accuracy, credibility and accountability on its website.

In theEquustekdecision, Justice Rosalie Abella ruled, The problem in this case is occurring online and globally. The internet has no borders its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates globally.

However, it is theborderlessfeature of the internet that has made cyberspace such a valuable forum for different nations and cultures to come together. Governments have already used soft power effectively to assert jurisdiction beyond the territorial boundaries in, for example, France'sLICRA v. Yahoocase. Despite strong arguments about a lack of jurisdiction, Yahoo eventually agreed to remove all auction listings for Nazi memorabilia globally to ensure that such listings werent available to French residents, as the French court demanded. TheEquustekcase is testing this balance once again.

Google now seeks an injunction in California District Court to keep theEquustekruling from being enforced in the United States. Various civil society and internet trade groups haveofferedtheir support, but the fight is still ongoing. This should remind us all how easy it would be for governments around the world to unravel Barlows vision of the internet as an anarchic neutral zone for free expression, openness and commerce. It is not too late to defend these values, and patch the fractures that have begun to form in the foundations of cyberspace.

Ariel Jeng is a research assistant with the R Street Institute, a nonprofit group aimed at promoting limited government.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

More here:

Canadian Google crackdown illustrates need to protect free speech online - The Hill (blog)

ACLU Will Defend Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right To Free Speech – HuffPost

Posted on by

Milo Yiannopoulos got some unexpected support this week from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The former Breitbart news editor and internet troll released a self-published memoir, Dangerous,last month to mostly negative reviews. In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the ACLU argued that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority violated Yiannopoulos right to free speech when it refused to let him promote the book which has been described as desperate and largely boring on the Washington, D.C., metro. (As it turns out, the New York subway didnt have similar qualms.)

The British-born Yiannopoulos is among several clients including abortion and birth control provider Carafemand the animal advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animalsnamed in the ACLUs lawsuit, according to the Los Angeles Times. The suit stems from WMATA guidelines that forbid advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions, which the ACLU believes is too vague.Given Yiannopoulos history of mocking Muslims, feminists, the LGBTQ communityand the Black Lives Matter movement, however, the conservative authors inclusion in the suit sparked instant controversy.

Acknowledging that 32-year-old Yiannopoulostrades on outrage, ACLU officials nonetheless explained their choice to defend him in a Wednesday blog post on the groups official website. The ACLU condemns many of the values he espouses (and he, of course, condemns many of the values the ACLU espouses), they wrote.

Though WMATA initially accepted the Dangerous ads anddisplayed them in Metro stations and subway cars, they were removed 10 days later after passengers complained, the ACLU alleges. To anyone whod be outraged to see Mr. Yiannopoulos advertisement please recognize that if he comes down, so do we all, ACLU officials wrote. The First Amendment doesnt, and shouldnt, tolerate that kind of impoverishment of our public conversation. Not even in the subway.

James Esseks, who is the director of the ACLUs LGBT & HIV Project, defended his organizations decision to represent Yiannopoulos in a second blog, also published Wednesday. Some people may say that Mr. Yiannopoulos offensive speech sets him apart and doesnt deserve to be defended. But the sad reality is that many people think that speech about sexuality, gender identity, or abortion is over the line as well, he wrote. If First Amendment protections are eroded at any level, its not hard to imagine the government successfully pushing one or more of those arguments in court.

Though the ACLU has a liberal reputation, the organization has previously represented people and groupswhose values lie at the opposite end of the political spectrum, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church and conservative talk radio personalityRush Limbaugh.Still, support for their defense of Yiannopoulos was not unanimous across staff members. Chase Strangio, an ACLU staff attorney best known for defending U.S. military whistleblower and transgender activist Chelsea Manning, blasted the decision in a lengthy note posted to Twitter on Wednesday.

Calling Yiannopoulosvile and a reprehensible person,Strangio wrote,I dont believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases. His actions have consequences for people that I care about and for me.

Meanwhile, Yiannopoulos told the Los Angeles Times that he wasglad that the ACLU has decided to tackle a real civil rights issue, adding, Free speech isnt about only support[ing] speech you agree with, it is about supporting all speech especially the words of your enemies. Strong opponents keep us honest.

Find ways to combat bigotry by subscribing to theQueer Voices newsletter.

Original post:

ACLU Will Defend Milo Yiannopoulos' Right To Free Speech - HuffPost

SMU reverses decision to move 9/11 memorial after free speech … – USA TODAY

Posted on by

File Southern Methodist Universitys Dallas Hall, where the 9/11 memorial traditionally appears. (Photo: Hillsman S. Jackson, File)

Is a 9/11 memorial placed prominently on campus triggering and harmful, or an appropriate and respectful remembrance?

Thats been hotly debated at Southern Methodist University this summer. The university just reversed its decision to relegate a traditional 9/11 memorial and all other student displays to an out-of-the-way spot on campus.

According to Campus Reform, earlier this summer, the campus organization SMU Young Americans For Freedom filed their annual request for the public display of their 9/11 memorial, a part of the national 9/11 Never Forget Project.

In response, SMU officials requested the display appear not, as usual, on Dallas Hall Lawn, but instead at a park the university noted is larger but students argued is located in a less inconspicuous spot.

Critics accused the university of muting free speech.

According the Washington Post, the universitys new policy on student displays stated that, SMU respects the right of all members of the community to avoid messages that are triggering, harmful, or harassing. That wording has now been removed from the SMU website.

Some outlets seized on the situation with critical headlines like 9/11 memorial flags may be too much for some students.

It was disappointing to us when we first discovered the new policy because of SMUs decent track record in protecting free speech, said Grant Wolf, a senior at SMU and president of the SMU Young Americans for Freedom.

According the SMU student newspaper, the Daily Campus, These annual displays have been met with little resistance until several years ago, when a number of students spoke out against Mustangs for Lifes Memorial of Innocents cross display. In that incident, a campus pro-life group displayed more than 2,000 crosses also on the Dallas Hall Lawn, incidentally to memorialize the abortions performed daily in the U.S., sparking vandalism, threats and intense debate.

SMU Young Americans For Freedom published an open letter to the university president about the 9/11 memorial, signed by leaders of clubs from across the political spectrum.

The next day, SMU officials came out with a statement that reversed the sensitive language of the new policy but did not reverse its intentions. Meant to ease the chaos that ensued over freedom of speech, the letter walked the new policy back: That language regarding messages that are triggering or harmful was added earlier in July and had not gone through the appropriate approval process.

A week later, the university president came out with another letter that changes the policy and allows the organization to keep the original display.

I thank the students from across campus who came together in the spirit of mutual respect and civil discourse to achieve this outcome, SMU President R. Gerald Turner said in the statement.

We were very pleased, as a result of our discussions, that they agreed about the importance of free speech and understood our concerns, that they agreed to reinstate free expression on Dallas Hall Lawn, Wolf said. Our organization is on the front lines nationally trying to stand for free speech, so we saw this was an important opportunity for freedom of speech for all students.

Kalina Newman is a Boston University student and a USA TODAY digital producer.

Go here to read the rest:

SMU reverses decision to move 9/11 memorial after free speech ... - USA TODAY

Their view: Google memo is not a free speech issue – Wilkes Barre Times-Leader

Posted on by

Ive reached a very important conclusion about white men, and Ill get to that soon enough, but first, please repeat after me: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Say it again. And again. And if youre one of those aggrieved white guys out there harboring the odd misconception that your voice is being unfairly stifled by political correctness, say it 15 more times, because it just doesnt seem like this concept has sunk in.

Consider this weeks firing of a white, male Google employee who published a 10-page memo about diversity on an internal company forum. The software engineer used 3,000-or-so wholly unnecessary words to claim that there are fewer women in the tech industry because of biological causes and that diversity programs increase race and gender tensions.

The memo is riddled with sexist stereotypes poorly supported by scientific references that are, at best, dodgy. And it contains repeated statements that the author is all for diversity, is not sexist and eschews stereotypes statements proven false by the aforementioned poorly supported sexist stereotypes.

The engineers MANifesto also slams Google for not being a friendly place for conservatives, which is odd because conservatives spend a good bit of their time mocking the idea of safe spaces.

He writes: Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require (sic) for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

So the dude who doesnt believe in stereotypes claims conservatives are more conscientious than everyone else. Perfect.

If you care to read the full memo, you can find it online, though youll likely sprain an ocular muscle rolling your eyes.

My take as a white, male who, for whatever reason, is not part of the aggrieved brommunity is that the Google engineers word barf is insufferable, unquestionably insulting to women (and pretty much any non-white person) and the epitome of white, male privilege. And with all that said, he absolutely, without question, had every right in the world to write what he wrote.

Just like Google had every right to fire his white, male butt for, I assume, violating all manner of company standards and for just being an all-around turd. (I wouldve fired him just for thinking anyone would want to read a 10-page memo in the first place.)

There will surely be legal action, and maybe hell wind up prevailing. But Google was right to can him, and that canning isnt an attempt to curtail his freedom of speech.

He can say or write whatever he wants. But the things he says and writes might come with consequences, particularly when hes sharing his words on an internal company forum.

This isnt a First Amendment issue. The government isnt interfering with anybodys right to free speech. Still, many white guys have rushed to the Google bros defense, crying about how put upon they are because theyre never allowed to speak their minds.

If you are a white guy in America, you are not put upon. And if you feel put upon, its because you cant be bothered to put yourself in another persons shoes for half a minute and try to understand what being put upon actually looks like.

If youre griping about political correctness, youre really saying youre annoyed because you cant be flip with your language and say things that might offend other people.

The pros and cons and the implementation of diversity programs can and should certainly be discussed openly, but a self-righteous screed thats blind to anyone elses point of view isnt a discussion. Its a white guy mansplaining to female and non-white coworkers how diversity should work, and the very existence of that kind of thinking is why companies need diversity training.

Its not a liberal or a conservative concept. Its a human concept, one that only requires the humility to acknowledge that you might not understand what its like to be another person.

Now let me get to the conclusion promised at the beginning of this column. This may prove controversial, but Im sure my fellow white men will agree that I have every right in the world to share this conclusion, because white-dude thoughts are always worth sharing: White men are not biologically suited to writing memos about diversity.

They are too neurotic and tend to perform better in bubbles in which their sense of dominance is reinforced by other neurotic white men. They also tend to be overly emotional, particularly when fired for writing diversity memos, and can become hysterical when held accountable.

This is not to say I am opposed to diversity in diversity memo writing. White men are capable of working in supporting roles, possibly supplying a companys more biologically qualified women or people of color with printer paper, or perhaps procuring coffee for them while they write sensible diversity memos.

But attempts to encourage white men to write diversity memos is clearly social engineering run amok. We must respect the differences in our DNA and the skill sets our biology have clearly predetermined.

Lets stay in our lanes, shall we?

http://timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/web1_Rex-Huppke.jpg

Rex Huppke is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Readers may email him at [emailprotected].

View original post here:

Their view: Google memo is not a free speech issue - Wilkes Barre Times-Leader

Google Supports Freedom Of Speech For Child Sex Traffickers, But Not Conservatives – The Federalist

Posted on by

Google, the tech giant that recently fired one of its top engineers for penning a memo that stated men and women are different, has been funding organizations that are defending human traffickers rights to free speech.

Google engineer James Damore was fired Tuesday for perpetuating gender stereotypes in other words, saying something Google doesnt like after he wrote a 10-page memo that said the companys affirmative-action like hiring policies and programs werent helping the intended recipients.

Ironically, then, Google has also been backing efforts to protect websites like Backpage, a classified ad site commonly used by human traffickers to sell sexual encounters with children. A Google lobbyist has been reportedly blitzing members of Congress via email, urging them to oppose legislation that would amend section 230 of the1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects online forums and platforms from being liable for the content others write and publish on their websites,according to the National Center on Child Exploitation.

Lawmakers and activists have sought to amend section 230 to specifically state that speech that promotes or enables human trafficking should be excluded from such protections. But thesearch engine and its parent company Alphabet have supported the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy and Technology, and their fight against amending section 230 of the 1996 law.

We acknowledge fully that child sex trafficking is abhorrent and a serious problem, EFF attorney Aaron Mackey told The Observer. We are completely sympathetic to their concerns, but their proposed fix might undermine all speech platforms online, which are used overwhelmingly for good.

In other words, Google and its nonprofit allies are fighting efforts to amend a law to crack down on human trafficking because they say it would inhibit free speech, yet when one of Googles employees says something true yet outside the bounds of liberals comfort zone, he is immediately fired. Why is the tech giant more comfortable with protecting a shady classified ad sites right to free expression than one of its own employees who unlike child traffickers who use Backpage did nothing criminal? Perhaps because to a company with a crippling liberal bias, human traffickers are less icky than people who say things that challenge their political preferences.

Read more here:

Google Supports Freedom Of Speech For Child Sex Traffickers, But Not Conservatives - The Federalist

Film: The Tiny West Virginia Town Haunted by an NSA Secret – The Intercept

Posted on by

Sugar Grove, West Virginia was, by the accounts of its residents, a fine place to live until the Pentagon shuttered the sprawling naval base that sustained the town for decades leaving it with a state secret as its sole remaining attraction. A new documentary film by director Elaine McMillion Sheldon, a longtime chronicler of West Virginian life, visitsSugar Grove after the base was decommissioned and being auctionedoff, and traces the abiding shadow of a nearby National Security Agency facility still looming over the town.

The film is embedded above.

Antennae at the NSA listening post, codenamed TIMBERLINE, were built to capture Soviet satellite messages as they bounced off the moon, imbuing a pristine stretch of Appalachia with a sort of cosmic gravity. Residents lived with the knowledge that something was hidden away on a hilltop above the town, even if it was something they could never know. TIMBERLINEs mission has, to say the least, changed in the intervening years, as submarine-laid internet cables have become a greater priority for American spies than foreign satellite communication.

TIMBERLINE remains operational, but the facility, known to locals as the off-limits Upper Base, was never what kept Sugar Grove alive. The towns heart was the sprawling Lower naval base that served as a robust employer and de facto community center until the Sept. 11 attacks, when residents say even the Navy gym and recreational areas theyd always enjoyed were sealed up, like forbidding TIMBERLINE. Sheldons film reveals a parcel of the country thats dealing not just with a faltering economy and collapsed job base hardly unique to Sugar Grove but also with a legacy thats literally unspeakable. One of the only moments the film captures of anyone talking about the NSAs presence in Sugar Grove comes from a General Services Administration auctioneer Kristine Carson in a vacant naval gymnasium. Asked about the Upper Base, Carson notes, with a small smile, Its underground, I understand. Of course I cant speak to that.

Top video: The film is directed and produced by Elaine McMillion Sheldon/Field of Vision.

Go here to read the rest:

Film: The Tiny West Virginia Town Haunted by an NSA Secret - The Intercept

Posted in NSA

EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows … – EFF

Posted on by

WASHINGTON, D.C.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn an unprecedented ruling allowing the government to intercept, collect, and storewithout a warrantmillions of Americans electronic communications, including emails, texts, phone calls, and online chats.

This warrantless surveillance is conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law is exceedingly broadSection 702 allows the government to conduct surveillance of any foreigner abroadand the law fails to protect the constitutional rights of Americans whose texts or emails are incidentally collected when communicating with those people.

This warrantless surveillance of Americans is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ruling in U.S. v. Mohamud, decided that the Fourth Amendment doesnt apply to Americans whose communications were intercepted incidentally and searched without a warrant. The case centered on Mohammed Mohamud, an American citizen who in 2012 was charged with plotting to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. After he had already been convicted, Mohamud was told for the first time that information used in his prosecution was obtained using Section 702. Further disclosures clarified that the government used the surveillance program known as PRISM, which gives U.S. intelligence agencies access to communications in the possession of Internet service providers such as Google, Yahoo, or Facebook, to obtain the emails at issue in the case. Mohamud sought to suppress evidence gathered through the warrantless spying, arguing that Section 702 was unconstitutional.

In a dangerous and unprecedented ruling, the Ninth Circuit upheld the warrantless search and seizure of Mohamuds emails. EFF, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and New Americas Open Technology Institute filed a petition today asking the Supreme Court to review that decision.

The ruling provides an end-run around the Fourth Amendment, converting sweeping warrantless surveillance directed at foreigners into a tool for spying on Americans, said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. Section 702 is unlike any surveillance law in our countrys history, it is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court should take this case to put a stop to this surveillance.

Section 702, which is set to expire in December unless Congress reauthorizes it, provides the government with broad authority to collect, retain, and search Americans international communications, even if they dont contain any foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime.

We urge the Supreme Court to review this case and Section 702, which subjects Americans to warrantless surveillance on an unknown scale, said EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker. We have long advocated for reining in NSA mass surveillance, and the incidental collection of Americans private communications under Section 702 should be held unconstitutional once and for all.

For the petition: https://www.eff.org/document/mohamud-eff-cert-petition

For more on Section 702: https://www.eff.org/document/702-one-pager-adv

For more on NSA spying:https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

See the original post here:

EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows ... - EFF

Posted in NSA

North Korea, nukes and NSA – WND.com – WND.com

Posted on by

Im beginning to wonder: Has Americas NSA has been too busy with spying on Americans to bother with North Korea and their nukes?

It was Bill Clinton, of course, who fixed the North Korean problem by paying them not to build nukes. Perhaps there was some language confusion, and they thought the money was to build nukes. That seems to be what happened. Maybe thats why Hillary was supposed to become president? To pay North Korea more to not build more nukes.

With the Obama administration, the NSA became fully weaponized as the tool of choice to conduct opposition research and provide the necessary blackmail evidence to destroy any non-elitist candidate who might still have thought that the NSAs targets were rogue regimes rattling nukes or stirring chemical weapons in other parts of the world.

Perhaps the real targets were always Americans; or rather, Americans with whom the reigning political party disagreed. As I asked at the beginning of Obamas reign of domestic terror, why would anyone expect Chicago politics to be any different once it moved from Chicago and into the White House?

The CIA and the FBI also wanted to get into the game of picking winners by destroying the competition. Both the CIA and the NSA had their entrails handed to them by their own leakers, who placed our software espionage tools Americans had paid billions of dollars to develop onto hacker sites worldwide. These organizations must be a complete joke among Russian, Chinese and probably North Korean intelligence agencies.

Or maybe the tools were intentionally released by NSA and CIA. Maybe those organizations wanted plausible deniability when variants of their tools were used to plant evidence on a political suspects computer. To change the texts or email contents. Whos to know who actually did the deed? The agency? The hackers? Or another agency battling for budgetary power against one with compromised code?

Maybe the FBI generates its warrants by using illegal intercepts from these agencies. Maybe they lie to the secret courts that issue the warrants. Is that where the FBIs warrants for Manafort came from? The Constitution is so burdensome by requiring evidence of a crime and descriptions of what is to be seized. Under constitutional law, it would be overly difficult for the administration in power to prevent a new one from winning the next election. Is that the real reason Hillary was convinced she couldnt lose?

If we had a Congress that was worth a penny on the dollar of what we actually pay for it, that congress would cancel its summer town-hall lovefests (its not an election year), go back to the Capitol and when they arrived begin discussing the amount of rope to buy and where to build the gallows. A coup is no less a coup because it is being conducted in secret. This behavior wont end until those perpetrating it are brought to justice.

Why are big media and the deep state so close together in the tank for this coup? Did they have something else in mind for America besides another election? Stop braying at the ideological idiots writing the news and the talking fools discussing it. The real problem is well above them in the organizations sponsoring this domestic terror. Its time for some housecleaning in the executive offices. These are publicly traded companies responsible to the public for their actions.

Paging Congress paging Congress.

The rest is here:

North Korea, nukes and NSA - WND.com - WND.com

Posted in NSA

Does Mueller’s grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? – PolitiFact

Posted on by

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has opened a grand jury in Washington, D.C., for his investigation into Russian election meddling and possible coordination by Trump campaign associates, according to multiple news reports. We decided to review the significance of this move, so we asked legal experts for their views on several questions related to grand juries.

What is a grand jury and what is its job?

The grand jury traces its roots to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That provision says that "(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

When a court impanels a federal grand jury, jurors are tasked with figuring out whether enough evidence exists to formally accuse someone of a felony. Unlike a trial jury, a grand jury does not play a role in determining guilt or punishment. Rather, this panel of 16 to 23 citizens serves a gatekeeping function for issuing indictments.

In modern practice, the grand jury is a potent investigative tool for prosecutors, said Andrew D. Leipold, a law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law.

"People dont generally have a duty to cooperate with law enforcement," Leipold said. "So if the police or FBI questions someone, typically that person is not required to answer. And generally unless the police have a warrant, they cant make a person produce documents."

"But a grand jury can do that," he said.

In Muellers case, he could not conduct an effective investigation without a grand jury, said Ric Simmons, a law professor at Ohio State University.

"The prosecutor does not have subpoena power on his or her own," he said. "He or she needs the grand jury to issue subpoenas for documents and to compel testimony."

To issue an indictment, a grand jury needs to believe a federal crime was probably committed. This threshold, known as the "probable cause" standard, is a far easier hurdle to clear than the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict. Grand juries are also one-sided ordeals, where neither defendants nor their lawyers have the right to appear before jurors to refute incriminating evidence.

For these reasons, lawyers have a saying that any halfway decent prosecutor should be able to indict a ham sandwich. But its important to emphasize that someone who is indicted has not yet been found guilty, and may never be.

How has Special Counsel Robert Mueller used grand juries so far?

Muellers appointment in May as special counsel granted him fairly broad jurisdiction.

The Justice Department authorized him to lead an investigation into Russias interference in the 2016 election, as well as any links or coordination between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates, plus "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Grand juries are supposed to operate in secrecy, but because they issue subpoenas and compel testimony, their work sometimes becomes public. Our best understanding of how Mueller has used grand juries is based primarily on anonymously sourced news reports.

In June, Reuters reported that Mueller was taking over a grand jury investigation in Virginia that had been looking into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The investigation got fresh attention when the Wall Street Journal reported in August that a new grand jury had convened weeks earlier in Washington, D.C., to focus on his investigation.

That same day, Reuters reported the new grand jury had issued subpoenas related to a controversial June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer, and several others (CNN also reported on the subpoenas). The meeting was predicated on the promise that a "Russian government attorney" would deliver damaging information to Trump Jr. about his fathers Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Why would Mueller open up a new grand jury?

While Muellers precise rationale for seeking more than one grand jury is not publicly known, legal experts told us its a fairly unsurprising move for a special prosecutor because it carries several advantages.

Grand juries typically divide their attention among multiple cases. So its possible Mueller believes he can operate more smoothly with a panel of jurors focused exclusively on whats potentially a large volume of information.

"In special investigations, rather than ordinary criminal cases, it is not uncommon to impanel a special grand jury," said Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Ohio State University. "This way, the jurors will become increasingly knowledgeable about the matters at issue, and they can focus on just one matter."

Theres a number of other theories for Muellers move.

Some believe his grand jury was meant to make it easier to broaden the scope of his investigation beyond Flynn.Others say a Washington-based jury would be more sympathetic. Still others say Mueller simply wanted a grand jury closer to his teams Washington office.

"Since the proceedings are secret, it is very hard to know which (if any) of these are correct," said Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School.

Does the new grand jury mean an indictment is near?

Legal experts we spoke to fell into two camps on whether the existence of Muellers grand jury tells us anything about the likelihood of any future indictments.

Some experts think a grand jury by itself tells us nothing. Others said it increases the chances of indictments issuing at some future point, though none believed they were imminent.

Simmons said while a grand jury is a prerequisite for a future indictment, its also a required step in the early stages of an investigation.

"It simply means that Mueller did not believe the case was frivolous and decided a real investigation was appropriate," he said. "Thats something we all pretty much assumed already."

Leipold called the grand jurys impaneling "important but unremarkable" in the grand scheme of the investigation.

"I dont find any clues in its presence as to whether or not there will be an indictment or whether or not its imminent," he said. "I can imagine a world in which Mueller says, Im not inclined to seek an indictment, or, one in which he seeks lots of indictments."

Others viewed the new grand jury as a more meaningful development, but cautioned against jumping to any premature conclusions about its ultimate significance.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that because of the relatively low probable cause standard -- recall the quip about indicting a ham sandwich -- she believes its more likely than not that at least one criminal indictment will issue.

"But none of this is a done deal," she added.

So what to make of the frenzied speculation in the Twitterverse about an indictment being issued any day now?

"I think people have overreacted to this news by thinking an indictment is imminent," Shugerman said.

Perhaps the only clue the grand jury gives as to Muellers timeline is that were in for a lengthy investigation, said Mark Godsey, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati and author of Blind Injustice, about the inner-workings of federal prosecutors' offices.

"I dont think it says much about timing, other than it suggests there is a lot of work to do, and that can impact how long the investigation lasts," he said.

Share the Facts

2017-08-10 15:47:15 UTC

-1

-1

-1

Correct about grand juries

"You cant read that (the impaneling of a grand jury necessarily) means that indictments are going to follow."

Adam Schiff

U.S. Rep, D-Calif.

CNN

Sunday, August 6, 2017

2017-08-06

Continue reading here:

Does Mueller's grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? - PolitiFact

Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted on by

By David Codrea

USA -(Ammoland.com)-Skyhorse Publishing is about to release my next book, which is devoted to great and fatal government-caused disasters. The title is . Im From the Government, and Im Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence, attorney and author David T. Hardy informed AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Thursday. Texas City, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, the VA hospital scandal time after time, government employees kill Americans by negligence, stupidity, or agency corruption, and time after time they escape all legal accountability.

Hardys should be a familiar name to longtime readers of this columnists work. His contributions to advancing the right to keep and bear arms have been chronicled extensively on The War On Guns blog, which has over the years featured numerous posts on his numerous books, his groundbreaking In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, his observations on the Of Arms & the Law blog, and his legal work, including cases and law review articles.

By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.

Ill offer one other stipulation, just to make sure all cards are on the table so that any recommendations I make can be viewed with the appropriate skepticism the words of everyone with an agenda (admitted or otherwise) should be: I havent read the book.

Thats because it hasnt been released yet.

The publisher informs me that the book may be released 1-2 weeks before the official Amazon release date of October 10, Hardy advises. Amazon will begin shipping as soon as they receive the books, and October 10 only reflects the publishers guarantee that Amazon will have them by that date come hell or high water. The publisher tries to beat that date by a week or two.

So why make noise about it now?

Because you can pre-order it. And because with some authors, I have confidence and faith based on past experience. So Id like to start the buzz on this immediately, to prime gun owner rights advocates to be ready for the release by learning about the book now. As such, here are some resources you are invited to check out (and to share with those you think would be interested):

Note the website includes links to pre-order form Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Also see:

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Visit link:

Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers’ 2nd Amendment rights – Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

Posted on by

In response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial, I do believe in States rights, the need for local control and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Governor Cuomo forced into law.

Governor Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the Governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

U.S. Rep. Chris CollinsNY-27th Congressional DistrictClarence

Read more here:

Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers' 2nd Amendment rights - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block … – WJLA

Posted on by

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing individuals in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland who argue that the governors in those states have violated the First Amendment by deleting comments and blocking users on the governors' Facebook and Twitter pages.

The plaintiffs in each case argue that they were shut out of a public political forum because they had been critical of the governors' policies or expressed views were at odds with their state's chief executive. By blocking comments and users, the plaintiffs say their governor has violated their right to free speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One of the issues at stake is whether public figures can use their social media accounts to sanction other users based private preferences. More fundamentally the cases could determine whether political speech is protected in the social media age.

"In this new world of social media, government officials and constituents are using these platforms as a powerful tool to connect with each other," said Meagan Sway, Justice Fellow with the Maine ACLU chapter. "But when that happens, the First Amendment applies."

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has been accused of using his Facebook account in an official government capacity to conduct official government business. He has also taken advantage of the platform's features to block certain constituents. According to the ACLU, "that's unconstitutional censorship."

The arguments are similar in Kentucky and Maryland, where numerous constituents have come forward to challenge the 21st century version of being banished from the public commons. In Utah, the ACLU has put the state's federal congressional delegation on notice after similar complaints from constituents.

Already, experts anticipate the cases in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland will shape the environment for the high-profile case involving President Donald Trump blocking Twitter users.

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit against the president in June arguing it is unconstitutional for an elected public official using a "designated public forum," like Twitter, to block speech just because it is critical or disagreeable.

"It's a new area of law," Sway said in an interview with WGME News. "We think courts will agree with us ... that this is an open platform, that the government cannot kick people off just because [they] dont agree with them."

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the pending social media cases beg for a "firm declaration" from the courts that blocking political speech on social media a violation of the First Amendment.

"If you're a government official, your social media is an extension of your office and you cant block people for innocuous reasons, or for political reasons" he emphasized. "If you're a government official, especially a governor, I don't think you can bifurcate your personal speech from your official speech."

In Maine, LePage has worked to do just that and distance his official position from his official social media accounts.

A few weeks ago, the governor's "about" page on Facebook was updated. It now states that the page is "official-but not managed by gov't officials," was a fan page but is now home to LePage supporters. However, the page was verified on behalf of the governor and LePage even opted into Facebook's "Town Hall" feature, which helps connect constituents and their government representatives.

Shortly after taking office in 2015, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland set up Facebook and Twitter accounts and by January 2017, Hogan had reportedly blocked 450 people.

"He didnt like [the posts], but thats not enough," Legal Director for ACLU Maryland Deborah Jeon told WBFF earlier this month. "People have a First-Amendment right to their own opinions. And when the governor establishes a forum for speech between constituents and the government, then he has to listen to what they have to say, whether or not he likes it."

The governor never responded to the ACLU's letter asking him to reinstate the seven individuals banned.

Hogan reacted to the lawsuit saying it was "frivolous" and motivated by partisan politics.

"Its silly, its ridiculous," Hogan told reporters last week. "We have about a million people a week on our Facebook page. Four of them were blocked for violating our Facebook policy and now the Maryland Democratic party got them to file suit with the ACLU."

The governor has defended blocking constituents on the basis of his office's "social media policy," which ACLU claims violates the state's social media policy. Under Hogan's personal policy, comments and users can be blocked if they are deemed irrelevant to the governor's announcements or initiatives, and if the users engage in a "Coordinated Effort" to petition the office. The office claims the right to block users and comments "at any time without prior notice or without providing justification."

"I don't buy that argument," he noted, adding that such arguments get into "untested" legal areas. "This is public business. This is clearly a first amendment issue with political speech implications and the right to petition government."

In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin has argued that the only comments or users being blocked are "abusive trolls" and others who are posting obscene or inappropriate content.

"Gov. Bevin is a strong advocate of constructive dialogue," his communications directed said responding to the ACLU suit. "Blocking individuals from engaging in ... inappropriate conduct on social media in no way violates their free speech right under the U.S. or Kentucky constitutions, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinion in an open forum."

According to the plaintiffs, there are "hundreds" of users who have been permanently blocked by Bevin, including "Kentuckians Against Matt Bevin," a public Facebook group with over 1,900 followers.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Mary Hargis, noted that while she has been critical of the governor on certain issues she was "shocked" to discover he had blocked her. "I may not have voted for Governor Bevin, but I'm one of his constituents," she said. "He shouldn't be permanently dismissing my views and concerns with a click."

As these suits are litigated and President Trump squares off against his blocked Twitter followers, it is unclear how the courts will rule, though U.S. courts tend to rule firmly in favor of protecting political speech.

"If these cases keep getting litigated and appealed ... I can actually see the Supreme Court weighing in on this a year or two down the road," Gutterman suggested. "I think it would be a soft ball."

Just recently the Court handed down its first major decision on a social media case in June, ruling unanimously that the First Amendment protected an individual from being refused access to social media. The question before the court was whether a convicted sex offender could be blocked from Facebook , Twitter and other popular social media sites.

The Supreme Court ruling is likely to provide a strong argument for the plaintiffs as the Facebook blocking cases move forward.

"Political speech ... has always been the highest level of First Amendment activity," Gutterman stated. "There's clear First Amendment action here. You've got government activity, government action and citizen expression."

Follow this link:

First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block ... - WJLA

Can NEO Become The Largest Cryptocurrency in the World? – HuffPost

Posted on by

Cryptocurrencies are the talk of the town these days, and investors and programmers around the world are searching for systems that will provide the greatest level of support and return. One such currency, NEO, has the makings of the largest and most important cryptocurrency in the world.

The cryptocurrencies that most people are familiar with are Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin has been in the news because of the recent fork in the currency, resulting in Bitcoin Cash. However, the blockchain that Bitcoin is supported by is limited in its effectiveness for creating and running programs. In fact, only currencies and not programs are not possible on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Ethereum was invented four years ago as a way to both monetize the blockchain and allow for programmers to build apps and programs on the chain itself. Ethereum is both a cryptocurrency (ETH) and a blockchain that allows for smart contracts and some programming languages. Built by Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum still retains the anti-establishmentarianism of Bitcoin, while allowing for more programming and transaction applications.

NEO is the new name for the upgraded version of Antshares, a digital platform developed in China. NEO is a radically different and more powerful version of Antshares and presents massive opportunity for investors and programmers alike.

To begin with, NEO creates a unique digital economy around its token. NEO is a full integration of digital assets, digital identity, and smart contracts, creating a fully digitized economy that will be transparent and safe, and make money laundering and underground dealings difficult or impossible. Because of the ability of the new NEO blockchain system, companies and developers will be seeking to use NEO for various applications. The proliferation of smart contracts will make investment on the NEO platform simple and safe.

Second, NEO is unique among blockchain cryptocurrencies because of the versatility of the blockchain it is based on. Unlike Bitcoin, which only allows for the cryptocurrencies and no programming, NEO is very simple to learn and understand (unlike Ethereum), and has the ability to work with nearly every (90%) programming language available. NEO uses compilers compatible with Java, C#, and .NET, and will support Python, Go, and others in the near future. Unlike Ethereum, this diversity allows for a far more complex array of programs and apps that can be run on the NEO blockchain, and opens doors for extensive partnerships. With ease of learning and robust compatibility, NEO is poised to overtake Ethereum and others as the blockchain of choice.

Third, NEO is different philosophically. Rather than seeking simple rejection of the overall control of governments, NEO is designed to work within the framework of existing government control, while still providing freedom and autonomy to its users. This is a far more realistic perspective than the anti-government rhetoric of other blockchains, and will result in far greater investment and acceptance.

Fourth, NEO is not based on a proof-of-work mechanism, and so there is no mining necessary. This has been a huge detriment to both Bitcoin and ETH, as mining is so energy intensive and public opinion is turning against miners and the blockchain systems they support. NEO utilizes an ether-gas system for production and continuation, but protects the environment against over consumption of energy.

NEO, though relatively new, has already entered the top ten list of cryptocurrencies based on overall market cap. While this may seem like a small feat, a newer coin that has been recently released never enters the top ten in this way. NEO has had an explosive beginning as a cryptocurrency.

The future for NEO is bright, as the world begins to understand the complexity and simple elegance that is built into the NEO blockchain system. NEO will continue to gain market share (as already evidenced), and may surpass even Bitcoin in terms of its market share. As companies, investment firms, programmers and others realize the power and versatility of NEO, it may well grow to be the largest cryptocurrency in the world. Its design and features have positioned NEO to be massively successful in the coming years.

Brian is an international speaker and branding expert. Say hi to Brian at connect@brianrashid.com

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

View post:

Can NEO Become The Largest Cryptocurrency in the World? - HuffPost

Sensay advice bot to launch Ethereum-based cryptocurrency – VentureBeat

Posted on by

Sensay, a bot that connects people with other people for anonymous advice, announced today plans to launch an Ethereum-based cryptocurrency called SENSE.The bot currently has hundreds of thousands of monthly active users, founder Crystal Rose told VentureBeat earlier this year. Token sales will begin Oct. 10.

Sensay has been used by 3 million people since its launch as an SMS bot in 2015.

In an interview earlier this year, Rose told VentureBeat Sensay views monetization as a priority in order to provide its human network of advice givers incentive to use the bot and continue to offer advice on subjects ranging from relationships (most popular) to where to find dank memes.

Today, advice givers can receive tips in the form of tokens, and roughly 20 million coins have been awarded already. Once SENSE becomes available, coinholders will be immediately rewarded in a 1:1 basis, a Sensay spokesperson told VentureBeat in an email.

The currency may be made available to bots, apps, and services beyond Sensay in the future, a company spokesperson told VentureBeat.

SENSE is the second cryptocurrency launched for the bot ecosystem in recent months. This spring, chat app Kik announced plans to create its own cryptocurrency called Kin.

Sensay is currently available on Facebook Messenger, WeChat, Slack, Kik, Skype, SMS, iMessage and Telegram.

Link:

Sensay advice bot to launch Ethereum-based cryptocurrency - VentureBeat

Ukraine’s Central Bank Moves Closer to Cryptocurrency Regulation – CoinDesk

Posted on by

The National Bank of Ukraine, the country's central bank, has indicated it may soonseek to regulate the use of cryptocurrencies.

While a clear outline for the initiative is still absent, in its latest announcement, the central bank said the legal implications of cryptocurrencies will be discussed at the next Financial Stability Board of Ukraine meeting at the end of August.

The decision comes at a time when Ukraine is seeing increased bitcoin activity, from payments to mining to blockchain development, but also when regulatory uncertainty hasled its law enforcementto take steps to reprimand bitcoin users.

Just days ago, Ukrainian police arrested several suspects who allegedly set up 200 computers to mine bitcoins at an abandoned swimming pool withina state institute in Kiev.

According to local media Kyiv Post, the court documentaccused the suspectsof illegally taking advantage of state property, and producing a currency, which is currently a function only the National Bank is legally allowed to do. Further, the law also states that no other currency besides theUkrainian Hryvnia can be treated as legal payment in Ukraine.

Citing the different approaches taken by other countries in defining cryptocurrencies, the banking authority will now begin itsdiscussion withthe Ministry of Finance, State Fiscal Service, the State Financial Monitoring Service, Securities and Stock Market State Commission and the National Commission for the State Regulation of Financial Services Markets.

Ukraine imagevia Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Have breaking news or a story tip to send to our journalists? Contact us at [emailprotected].

Continue reading here:

Ukraine's Central Bank Moves Closer to Cryptocurrency Regulation - CoinDesk

The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Will Show Us Which Coin Is Best – Fortune

Posted on by

On August 1, the digital currency Bitcoin split into two derivative currencies, Bitcoin Classic (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Far from being a rushed spinoff, as Blockstream Chief Strategy Officer Samson Mows August 7 op-ed in Fortune claims , the split was a long time coming.

The origins of the debate can be traced back to 2010, when a one megabyte per 10 minutes limit was quietly added into the Bitcoin codebase as a spam control measure. Because the value of a bitcoin was so low at the time, trading for pennies each, the limit was intended to prevent would-be attackers from overloading the network with a flood of cheap transactions.

This one simple variable gradually led to the emergence of two competing factions within the Bitcoin industry. One side wanted the limit raised to allow Bitcoin to scale with growing demand, while the other side claimed that allowing Bitcoin to grow too quickly would result in its centralization and shift to corporate control.

As the Bitcoin network grew in popularity, this one megabyte limit started being pushed up against in late 2016, but through organic network growth rather than by a flood of maliciously generated transactions. The result was that Bitcoin found itself unable to absorb increased demand: Every transaction would now be at the expense of another, and a fee bidding war drove the average transaction fee from pennies to a peak of more than $5 in June 2017.

Many worried that such high fees would hinder Bitcoins growing adoption and use, disenfranchising most of the worlds actual Bitcoin users, leaving only price speculators and those willing to pay high fees to transact in bitcoin.

After years spent at loggerheads with the other faction, the Bitcoin Cash supporters decided that rather than try to morph Bitcoin to their wishes, they would simply create a split of the ledger and let the market decide. The Bitcoin Classic chain retains the one megabyte limit and the legacy ticker symbol, BTC, while the Bitcoin Cash chain has increased the limit to eight megabytes and adopted a new ticker symbol, BCH (alternatively BCC, depending on who you ask).

Any person holding bitcoin at the time of the split on August 1 received identical amounts of each new coin at the time of the split. If you had one Bitcoin at the end of July, youd now have one BTC and one BCH in August. Rather than causing a market upset, the split achieved the desirable outcome of allowing both visions of Bitcoin to compete in the free market.

Many have decided to sell one side of the split to buy more of the other side, but more conservative holders can benefit from holding both and refraining from speculation. Preventing either of the two ideologically divided camps from pursuing their vision does no one any favors: Both camps were stuck with a version of Bitcoin they viewed as suboptimal. The split allows each coin to develop and grow in the way its supporters believe to be best.

And the markets seem to agree. The price of both tokens combined is now greater than the price of one Bitcoin before the split. In the long term, expect to see market demand coalesce around one of the two coins. Bitcoin has always belonged to the free marketmay the best coin win!

Jake Smith is a manager at Bitcoin.com .

Continued here:

The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Will Show Us Which Coin Is Best - Fortune

Bitcoin vaults to new record above $4K, boosted by Japan and multiplying its value fourfold – CNBC

Posted on by

The digital currency bitcoin vaulted to a new record high above $4000 on Saturday, boosted by strong Japanese demand on its way to multiplying its value fourfold this year.

Bitcoin traded as high as $4,000.93, more than 7 percent higher near $3,941 in Saturday dealings, according to CoinDesk.

The digital currency has now quadrupled in 2017, and is up about 40 percent in August alone. Bitcoin's market value is now around $64 billion, up about $10 billion in the last week.

Bitcoin trade in Japanese yen accounted for nearly 46 percent of global trade volume, up from about a third a day ago, according to CryptoCompare. US-dollar bitcoin trade accounted for about 25 percent, according to CryptoCompare. Bitcoin trade in Chinese yuan and South Korean won accounted for about 12 percent each.

Bitcoin rose in the last week, mirroring gold's climb amid a global selloff in stocks and bonds. Rising worries about North Korea's nuclear threat have sent investors flocking to perceived safe-havens and alternative assets.

Analysts have also noted increased investor interest, especially from institutional investors, after bitcoin successfully survived an Aug. 1 split into bitcoin and bitcoin cash.

This week, Fidelity launched a feature allowing customers to also view their Coinbase bitcoin holdings. The currency also got a boost from Goldman Sachs, which in a report released this week said it is harder for institutional investors to ignore cryptocurrencies like bitcoin.

Link:

Bitcoin vaults to new record above $4K, boosted by Japan and multiplying its value fourfold - CNBC

‘Blockchain technology will change the world’: Fidelity Labs SVP – CNBC

Posted on by

Imagining the future of blockchain technology is like trying to imagine Google and Facebook on the day the first web browser came out, said Hadley Stern, senior vice president at Fidelity Labs.

Stern is responsible for running Fidelity's bitcoin, blockchain and digital currency incubator. His research team has been experimenting with bitcoin because he said it is like "digital gold" and that "blockchain technology will change the world."

The corporation announced Wednesday that it started allowing clients to view bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on its website, making it one of the few established institutions that have warmed up to cryptocurrencies.

"The big story is you can transfer value through software and software alone. This is a huge societal breakthrough," Stern said on CNBC's "Closing Bell."

And regardless of whether bitcoin will survive, it could be like the Napster of blockchain technology, Stern said, where it is the first of its kind but the next products, in this case Spotify and Apple Music, get better and better.

"I do think [cryptocurrencies] will make things, whether it's bitcoin or something else, faster and cheaper and create new products and services that we can't even imagine," Stern said.

While some critics are skeptical of how bitcoin is used, Stern said that banning the cryptocurrency would be like banning the web or open internet protocols.

"Whether governments like it or not, it's here to stay," he said.

Stern did emphasize though that Fidelity's move does not mean their clients can make bitcoin transactions through their corporation, saying "we're not necessarily making a judgment on bitcoin." It is just a way for clients to view their bitcoin balances alongside their accounts.

Bitcoin reached an all-time high of around $3,500 Friday, up more than 20 percent for the week.

See original here:

'Blockchain technology will change the world': Fidelity Labs SVP - CNBC