Hubble Telescope sees merging ‘David and Goliath’ galaxy pair … – Fox News

Posted on by

The Hubble Space Telescope has taken a close look at the fascinating gravitational effects caused by a diminutive dwarf galaxy as it orbits its massive neighbor. The galactic pair will eventually merge, with the dwarf being eaten but it's not going down without a fight.

NGC 1512 is a colossal barred spiral galaxy containing billions of stars, plus active regions of star formation. Hubble, a joint project of NASA and the European Space Agency, can easily detect star formation in the galaxy's outer ring. That region is dotted with many blueish HII-emission regions, meaning that blasts of powerful radiation coming from nearby young stars are ionizing the clouds of hydrogen gas. In this observation of NGC 1512, however, the bright blue inner hub of star formation takes center-stage.

Known as a "circumnuclear starburst ring," this intense star-formation region measures 2,400 light-years across. It is fed by a conveyor belt of gas streaming down the two prominent bars from the galaxy's outer rim to the galactic core (hence the "barred spiral galaxy" designation). Astronomers think that the 400-million-year-old gravitational battle between NGC 1512 and its tiny buddy, NGC 1510 (on the right in the image), is driving the massive galaxy's gas supply and starburst ring, researchers said in a statement.

Although NGC 1510 seems to be holding its own against its neighboring gravitational bully, the unfortunate dwarf galaxy faces the beginning of the end. Already, the bigger galaxy's gravity is dragging extended tendrils of gas from the tiny galaxy, and NGC 1510's stars will eventually assimilate with NGC 1512's stellar metropolis. Astronomers know this because 2015 observations of the massive galaxy revealed that the outer regions of NGC 1512's spiral arms once belonged to another galaxy, one that was cannibalized and ingested a grim fate that also awaits NGC 1510. But in the cosmic ecosystem, this is the galactic cycle of life.

Although the doomed dwarf galaxy is small, it has a big impact on its larger companion, the statement said. Observations of these effects will help astronomers learn more about the dramatic consequences galactic mergers have for star formation in massive galaxies, according to the statement.

Note: Space.com senior producer Steve Spaleta contributed to this report.

Follow Ian O'Neill @astroengine . Follow us @Spacedotcom , Facebook or Google+ . Originally published on Space.com .

Go here to read the rest:

Hubble Telescope sees merging 'David and Goliath' galaxy pair ... - Fox News

NATO continuing massive multinational military exercises in Georgia – Press TV

Posted on by

Georgian President Giorgi Margvelashvili addresses servicemen from the US and Georgia participating in the joint multinational military exercise Noble Partner 2017, at an airbase outside Tbilisi, Georgia, August 1, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is continuing massive military drills in Georgia near Russia.

Some 2,800 troops from the US, the UK, Germany, Turkey, Ukraine, Slovenia, Armenia, and Georgia were participating in a live-fire combat operation on the 12th day of the so-called Noble Partner 2017 war games at the Vaziani Military Base, around 20 kilometers outside the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, on Thursday.

The exercises are being held in Georgia for the third time.

Russian officials have not commented on the event yet, but in previous years, Moscow had warned that drills could destabilize the region, a charge denied by Georgian officials and US diplomats.

In May last year, when the previous round of the war games began in Georgia, Moscow slammed the move and called the war games a provocative step.

Georgia, a country in the Caucasus region of Eurasia, is not a member of NATO but it contributes to the NATO Response Force (NRF). It also says that joint exercises are important for the country to strengthen ties and partnership with the military bloc.

Russia is generally unsettled by NATOs move eastward, considering it a threat to its security.

In recent years, NATO has staged multiple war games near Russias western borders, arguing that it intended to protect its members in Eastern Europe against the so-called Russian threat. Moscow dismissed allegations of such a threat, saying that the US-led bloc is creating Russophobia.

In July 15, NATO carried out military drills in Romania. On June 19, it staged war games on the border between Poland and Lithuania. A 10-day simultaneous exercise, called Iron Wolf, was also conducted in Lithuania.

NATO has also been attempting to co-opt countries near Russia, enticing them to formally join the Western military alliance.

Here is the original post:

NATO continuing massive multinational military exercises in Georgia - Press TV

Former Ambassador To NATO Says North Korea Won’t Back Down [VIDEO] – The Daily Caller

Posted on by

Former ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns said he doesnt see North Korea backing down but believes going to war with the rogue nation would be a mistake on MSNBCs Morning Joe Thursday.

I just dont see theNorth Koreansbacking down, Burns said. There is no reason for us to be threatening a war with North Korea right now. It really is time for diplomacy.

Burns praised the15-0 votefor sanctions against North Korea, calling it a big step forward, but expressed concern over Chinas involvement in the escalation. Diplomacy between Beijing and Washington is as critical now as any other part of this crisis, he said.

Burns suggested empowering Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to threaten secondary sanctions on Chinese and other companies that do business with North Korea to force a response.

I think we have to put together a bigger coalition in Asia to try isolate the North Koreans but I dont think that war is imminent, Burns said.

You can Follow Nick on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

See more here:

Former Ambassador To NATO Says North Korea Won't Back Down [VIDEO] - The Daily Caller

You read that right, President Obama’s UN Representative is believed to have made hundreds of unmasking requests. – American Center for Law and…

Posted on by

Weve reported for months on the frightening Obama Administration unmasking scandal and other Obama deep state efforts to sabotage the new Administration and undermine the Constitution and what we are doing about it.

The momentum is starting to shift.

Recent reports show that President Obamas National Security Advisor Susan Rice is being implicated in the unmasking scandal and leaking disgrace which is being exposed for what it is. We sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Security Agency (NSA). They ignored it, so we took them to federal court our second federal lawsuit against the NSA in the past few months.

Reports just this month reveal that Samantha Power President Obamas Representative to the United Nations is believed to have requested hundreds of so-called unmaskings of United States persons.

You read that right, President Obamas U.N. Representative is believed to have made hundreds of unmasking requests.

According to the Washington Free Beacon:

Former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power is believed to have made hundreds of unmasking requests to identify individuals named in classified intelligence community reports related to Trump and his presidential transition team, according to multiple sources who said the behavior is unprecedented for an official in her position. . . .

Efforts by the former Obama administration to obtain the names of Trump allies included in raw intelligence reports have fueled speculation that subsequent leaks to the press were orchestrated by the former administration and its allies in a bid to damage the current White House and smear Trumps most senior confidantes.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, in a recent letter to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, expressed the Committees findings, and alarm, that senior government officials offered remarkably few individualized justifications for access to this U.S. person information.

He went on:

For example, this Committee has learned that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration. Of those requests, only one offered a justification that was not boilerplate and articulated why that specific official required the U.S. person information for the performance of his or her official duties.

That person, the one whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, is believed to be Obama U.N. Representative, Samantha Power.

This is outrageous and despicable.

Interestingly, her attorney denied that she committed any of the leaks, but did not deny that she was the one implicated in the Washington Free Beacon report and Chairman Nunes letter.

Sometimes whats not said is more important than what is.

In the midst of misinformation and doublespeak, the ACLJ is pressing forward to get to the bottom of this latest shocking and embarrassing story, and to keep the pressure on to hold this lawless behavior accountable.

Today we took our next big step.

We sent what is now our third FOIA request to the NSA, seeking:

records pertaining to any and all requests former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power made to National Security Agency (NSA) officials or personnel regarding the unmasking of the names and/or any other personal identifying information of then candidate and/or President-elect Donald J. Trump, his family, staff, transition team members, and/or advisors who were incidentally caught up in U.S. electronic surveillance.

We laid out several specific requests to make sure we cover all possible angles. Heres one example:

All records, communications or briefings created, generated, forwarded, transmitted, sent, shared, saved, received, or reviewed by any NSA official or employee, where one communicant was former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power, including any communications, queries or requests made under an alias or pseudonym, and another communicant was the Director of the National Security Agency, the Chief of the Central Security Service, SIGINT production organization personnel, the Signals Intelligence Director, Deputy Signals Intelligence Director, or the Chief/Deputy/Senior Operations Officers of the National Security Operations Center, or any other NSA official or employee, referencing, connected to, or regarding in any way communication, request, query, submission, direction, instruction, or order, whereby Samantha Power sought access to or attempted to access SIGINT reports or other intelligence products or reports containing the name(s) or any personal identifying information related to [various individuals connected to President Trump] whether incidentally collected or otherwise . . . .

In the mean time, Attorney General Sessions recently announced that his Department of Justice is stepping up the investigations into illegal leaking. This is something weve been calling for and we applaud his announcement.

The momentum continues to build, and the ACLJ will stay at the forefront of the battle to protect the Constitution, defend our national security, fight government corruption, and demand accountability. We must preserve the integrity of our nations intelligence and national security apparatus. If we fail, the consequences would be devastating. Join us. Sign our Petition today.

Read the original post:

You read that right, President Obama's UN Representative is believed to have made hundreds of unmasking requests. - American Center for Law and...

Posted in NSA

The Bitcoin Bubble: Hidden Risks And The NSA – Investing.com

Posted on by

These digital currencies might make fiat currencies look good. Thats how bad they are. Peter Schiff

Until proven otherwise, , and all cryptocurrencies for that matter, are faith-based currencies, just like the U.S. dollar or any other fiat currency. Instead of full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, cryptocurrencies require full faith in blockchain technology. The Daily Coin posted an interview with Ken Schortgen of The Daily Economist in its revealed that: The NSA developed blockchain technology and released the information in a white paper that has been uncovered by Ken Schortgen, Jr., The Daily Economist LINK. The white paper can found here: How To Make A Mint: The Crytotography Of Anonymous Electronic Cash NSA, Cryptology Division, June 18, 1996.

Built to be skeptics, we have been wondering why Governments and Central Banks tolerate Bitcoin and all of the other cryptos if indeed the cryptos are the digital equivalent of the gold standard. As it turns out, the NSA de facto has the ability to hack crypto blockchains. We are certain the NSA is not the only entity globally with that ability. Furthermore, the cryptocurrencies are absorbing a lot of fiat currency that likely would otherwise be flowing into gold and silver. It reminds us of GLD (NYSE:) and SLV, both of which have absorbed billions of institutional cash into two black hole vaults that have yet to withstand a bona fide independent audit.

In this episode of we bravely shred the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mystique, which are more emblematic of the global asset bubble than a suitable substitute for gold and silvers monetary function:

Read more from the original source:

The Bitcoin Bubble: Hidden Risks And The NSA - Investing.com

Posted in NSA

Active-duty military members sue Trump over transgender ban – Washington Post

Posted on by

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Five active-duty service members sued President Trump Wednesday over his intentions to ban transgender personnel from serving in the military.

The directive to reinstate a ban on open service by transgender people violates both the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington by five anonymous Jane Does.

They are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Trump announced in a series of tweets on July 26 that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

[Trump announces ban on transgender service members ]

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

The military has not issued a policy on how that directive would be carried out. The suit states that upon information and belief, the White House turned [Trumps] decision into official guidance, approved by the White House counsels office, to be communicated to the Department of Defense.

Since the Obama administration lifted the ban on transgender troops in June 2016, hundreds of service members have come out and are serving openly. A Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon last year estimates that there are about 11,000 transgender troops in the reserves and active-duty military.

All five of the plaintiffs said they relied on the 2016 policy change when they notified commanding officers they were transgender. Besides the constitutional challenges, they ask the court to find Trumps intentions would be a violation of the promises government has made to members of the military.

Because they identified themselves as transgender in reliance on defendants earlier promise, plaintiffs have lost the stability and certainty they had in their careers and benefits, including post-military and retirement benefits that depend on the length of their service, the suit states.

The suit is expected to be the first of several filed once the ban is officially issued.

The plaintiffs are a Coast Guard member who has written a prospective letter of resignation; an Air Force active-duty service member of nearly 20 years who served twice in Iraq; and three Army soldiers.

In a news release, one plaintiff says: My experience has been positive and I am prouder than ever to continue to serve. I am married and have three children, and the military has been my life. But now, Im worried about my familys future.

Read more:

Active-duty military members sue Trump over transgender ban - Washington Post

Be Ready to Push Play on Yourself: Advice from Hip Hop’s Newest Mega Star – HuffPost

Posted on by

If someone asked me to rap for them, I would always be ready to drop a quick verse. I would never respond that I was too shy; I was prepared to spit a verse on command, explains Nicky Ds, one of Fifth Amendment and Blood Money Entertainments newest artists.

Fifth Amendment Entertainment manages rap icon The Game, as well as other notable artists such as Ray J and DJ Kay Slay. A native of Moreno Valley, California, Nicky Ds is an Irish kid who started rapping at the age of 8. He attributes Cash Wack100 Jones (Fifth Amendments CEO) and Stanley Stat Quo Benton as the pieces that were always missing for him: I was tired of people making me feel like what I was already doing wasnt enough. With Wack, I felt like I never had to sell myself, and he was always bringing me opportunities.

Nicky Ds got his start in the music business by working with his mentor Marcus Black. By working along side Black he was able to see how the process of putting out albums worked. In 2013, he launched his project an album titled The Grey Area from which he received some moderate success as well as a notable mention from XXL. After that, he began collaborating with legendary rapper The Game, whom he would eventually go on tour with, in both the USA and 12 other countries, including his homeland (Dublin, Ireland). I even got an opportunity to shoot a video in Dublin and click up with some of the local people that had a say, so salute to my guy Karl Mac, says Nicky Ds.

In 2015, after driving two-plus hours each way to Los Angeles to get to the studio during the week, Nicky Ds decided to make a permanent move to LA. At the time, he was still an independent artist, which meant he wasn't receiving a financial cushion from a label or management as he worked on developing as an artist. I was working a 9 - 5 at a Sprint store, and I still found ways to push my music out there. When I recognized customers whether they were an actor or producer I was ready with my elevator pitch, explains Nicky Ds.

Moving to LA was when I really found myself. I was putting in the kind of hours I never had before, and I was getting in the room with the people I needed to be around. Work smarter, not harder, and you never want an opportunity to walk out the door. If youre going to be around all the time, you have to be you. Its not a science; its art. I dont believe in luck, and I just felt like I was there for a reason. Theres a right place, right time, Nicky Ds says.

2017 has been a very busy but productive year for Nicky Ds. Teaming up with Stat Quo who Wack100 appointed as his A&R put new challenges in front of him. Where my rapping skills got me in the door, dealing with Stat Quo, who comes from Eminem & Dr. Dre's camp, placed me right back at the starting line. Whatever I initially did wasn't deep enough, and Stat gave me the guidance to find my inner thoughts that were trapped within, explains Nicky Ds.

Nicky Ds goes on to say that just this year alone hes worked with Scott Storch, Bongo By The Way, Foreign Teck from the Mekanics, Young Thug, and Lil Yachty, along with the legendary EVERLAST from The House of Pain.

Indeed, the bar is set high for Nicky D's, but he doesn't plan on letting that stop him: I've dropped a mixtape on Dat Piff called "The Fighting Irish" in May 2017, and currently have a hit single out titled "New Day," produced by Foreign Teck and featuring Young Thug and Lil Yachty. My EP titled "CLOVERS" is due to drop September 2017.

Nicky Ds is scheduled to open for Lil Yachty's Teenage Emotions Tour, which starts August 11th. Much appreciation to the Quality Control team, Yachty, and Coach K & "P. Being tied to Wack100, you never know what door he will open next. I just make sure I stay ready. He will call me at 2 a.m. with one task, then turn around and tell me I have to be at LAX at 2:30 a.m. and hang up the phone, giving me no time to argue about the task, says Nicky Ds.

I'm currently contracted to eOne Entertainment, which I'm very comfortable with. Alan Grunblatt (President) and Gabby Peluso (VP) listened to my music and believed in the vision that Wack100 put in front of them. Along with the rest of the team, including Dontay, Shadow, and Kathy, who oversee the radio department; Brendan Laezza, Marlisse Martinez, and Jamal Jimoh, who oversee the marketing department; and Kimberly She Boss Jones (President of Fifth Amendment) who makes sure all my business is in order I feel I'm off to a great start, explains Nicky Ds.

Nicky Ds leaves us with this advice for up-and-coming artists: Remember to develop genuine relationships with people and be a human, even if your number one priority is to promote your own agenda. The vibe you bring into the room is very important. Artists need that vibe to create, and that vibe cant be disrupted.

@memofiliz

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Go here to read the rest:

Be Ready to Push Play on Yourself: Advice from Hip Hop's Newest Mega Star - HuffPost

Four Good Reasons Mueller Mounted a Pre-Dawn Raid on Manafort – Newsweek

Posted on by

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

On Wednesday news broke that at the end of last month, FBI agents searched one of Paul Manaforts homes for documents as part of the Russia collusion investigation, directed by special counsel Robert Mueller.

What is the significance of this news? And why didnt Mueller just obtain the documents by grand jury subpoena?

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Muellers use of a search warrant tells us that he was able to establish on the basis of evidence, and to the satisfaction of a United States Magistrate-Judge, that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of a specific crime or crimes existed in the location to be searched.

That standard is significantly higher than what is required to obtain a grand jury subpoena, which can be used to obtain any evidence that a grand jury (under the direction of a prosecutor) decides will be helpful to their investigation.

Muellers resort to a search warrant shows, therefore, that his investigation has advanced, has identified specific potential crimes, and is zeroing in on key evidence.

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chairman and chief strategist, leaves the Four Seasons Hotel after a meeting with Trump and Republican donors, June 9, 2016 in New York City. Drew Angerer/Getty

Since it was Manaforts house that was searched, it is likely that he is implicated in the crimes, but that is not necessarily the case.

Further, it should be clear that just because Mueller has now reached this stage in the investigation, it does not necessarily mean that Manafort or anybody else will be ultimately charged with crimes.

Now why did Mueller use a search warrant instead of a subpoena, particularly since Manaforts attorney says that they have been cooperating with the investigation all along?

I can think of four possible reasons for Muellers move (none of which are mutually exclusive).

First, Mueller and his staff may have decided that, despite the claims of cooperation from Manaforts lawyer, Manafort could not be trusted to provide all of the documents requested by subpoena.

If Muellers team thought that there was any risk that Manafort would hide or destroy documents, that would be a strong reason to proceed with a search warrant.

Second, there may have been a need to move quickly. If Mueller used a grand jury subpoena, he would have had to give Manafort a reasonable amount of time to comply, and that time might have been further prolonged if Manaforts lawyer challenged any aspect of the subpoena.

Mueller may have needed the documents quickly in order to identify other lines of inquiry or for purposes of witness interviews, and so may have decided that using a search warrant would be more expeditious.

Third, Mueller may have wanted to avoid any Fifth amendment objections to a grand jury subpoena.

Although recipients of grand jury subpoenas demanding documents ordinarily cannot resist on self-incrimination grounds, because the documents requested were not themselves compelled and therefore do not fall within the privilege, there are narrow situations when witnesses can claim that because the government is engaged in a fishing expedition, compliance with the subpoena requires a testimonial act by the witness which could be self-incriminating. (I wrote about this possibility here in detail in connection with Congressional subpoenas to Michael Flynn.)

While a search warrant does not simply permit a fishing expedition, as the government must describe with some particularity the documents it is seeking, it nonetheless forecloses the Fifth amendment objection that Manaforts lawyer might have mounted in response to a subpoena.

Finally, Muellers move may have been in part strategic. He may have wanted to get Manaforts attention to emphasize the seriousness and advancing nature of the investigation, all with the hope of securing his cooperation.

A predawn search by FBI agents of Manaforts house could achieve this objective in a way that a grand jury subpoena just couldnt. And if Mueller was hoping to send a message, it is one that will likely be received by others in addition to Manafort.

If it was not clear already, it should now be plain that Mueller will use all the investigative tools at his disposal to fulfill the task that he has been assigned.

Alex Whiting served for ten years as a federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston, and eight years as an international criminal prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Read more here:

Four Good Reasons Mueller Mounted a Pre-Dawn Raid on Manafort - Newsweek

Trump Is Going After Legal Protections for Journalists – Foreign Policy (blog)

Posted on by

Last week, the Washington Post published leaked transcripts of President Donald Trumps January phone calls with Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Even with the administration beset by daily embarrassing leaks, this one was shocking, going well beyond the mere embarrassing portrayals of daily White House dysfunction. It is fair to presume that such transcripts are classified, and when asked about them, National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said only that he cant confirm or deny the authenticity of allegedly leaked classified documents.

So nobody should have been surprised that on Friday morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats held a press conference condemning the many leaks and vowing investigation and prosecution of those responsible. Sessions called for discipline in executive agencies and Congress to stem leaks. He indicated that since January, the Department of Justice has tripled the number of active leak investigations, and he announced a new FBI counterintelligence unit to manage them.

But then Sessions got to the press: One of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas. We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance the presss role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in the intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law-abiding Americans. Coats reiterated that the administration is prepared to take all necessary steps to identify individuals who illegally expose and disclose classified information.

This marks a serious intervention in a delicate, decades-long balancing act between the federal government and professional journalists. A change in the policy about press subpoenas could have grave consequences for the government and press alike.

A subpoena is the legal tool that forces an individual to testify or produce evidence. When subpoenas are issued to journalists (or their communications providers) in leak investigations, it is most often for the purpose of identifying a leaker: Match the relevant reporters telephone records to an individual with access to the classified information or better yet, force the reporter to testify directly as to the source and youve got your leaker. But youve also compromised the presss ability to protect their sources, undermining their ability to do their job.

Reporters who refuse to reveal their sources in compliance with such subpoenas risk contempt charges. To enforce subpoenas, courts and Congress have the authority to bring contempt charges against those who refuse to comply with lawful orders. Contempt charges aim to compel compliance with the order and can include jail time. In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller famously submitted to jail time for contempt rather than reveal a confidential source in the Valerie Plame leak investigation. (After two and a half months in jail, Miller was released early when Scooter Libby gave a waiver authorizing the government to question reporters about his conversations with them and Miller agreed to testify.)

Testimony that may otherwise be required by law might be nevertheless protected by a privilege. Such privileges include the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, marital communications privilege, attorney-client privilege, and executive privileges. The question is whether such a privilege does or should apply to reporters, exempting them from revealing sources.

While the Constitution limits government intrusion on the freedom of speech and of the press, the law does not offer absolute protection for journalists against revealing their sources. Congress has not enacted robust protections and the Supreme Court has not interpreted the First Amendment as itself embodying such a privilege nothing approximating a broad press privilege relieving reporters from revealing sources.

Such a privilege is protected at the state level in nearly all states. New Yorks statutory press privilege, for instance, broadly protects professional journalists against contempt charges for refusing or failing to disclose news obtained or received in confidence or the identity of the source of such news coming into such persons possession in the course of gathering or obtaining news for publication.

But no such privilege has been recognized uniformly at the federal level. In 1972, the Supreme Court rejected a broad First Amendment press privilege in Branzburg v. Hayes. Justice Lewis Powell joined the five-justice majority to reject an unqualified press privilege against revealing confidential sources, but wrote a puzzling separate concurrence suggesting some limited privilege subject to a balancing against the governments interest in a particular case. The state of the law remains uncertain but what we do know is that there is currently no broad, unqualified First Amendment privilege against revealing confidential news sources. (Importantly here, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia has agreed that even if there is a First Amendment press privilege to not reveal sources, the privilege is not absolute.)

Instead, since 1970, the executive branch has voluntarily restrained itself by limiting the situations in which it will subpoena reporters in investigating leaks. Those self-restraints are codified in federal regulation. Those regulations explicitly recognize the need to strike the proper balance among several vital interests: Protecting national security, ensuring public safety, promoting effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice, and safeguarding the essential role of the free press in fostering government accountability and an open society.

In striking that balance, the Justice Department explains that subpoenas directed to the news media are extraordinary measures, not standard investigatory practices. As such, press subpoenas are to be approved by the attorney general (or other high-ranking DOJ officials in certain limited cases) and are to be issued only where the information is essential and only after all reasonable alternative attempts have been made to obtain the information from alternative sources.

A system of mutual restraint thus governs in the face of indeterminate legal boundaries. Reporters dont want to go to jail and the government doesnt want to provoke a sweeping Supreme Court ruling or congressional enactment of an absolute press privilege. So reporters notify the government of stories to be published and often respect government requests to hold stories for some period of time for national security reasons. The government reserves the right to subpoena in extraordinary cases, but agrees to correspondingly extraordinary procedures.

But critical to making this delicate system work is that the government maintains credibility that the public believes the government pursues leak investigations, particularly those investigations that directly implicate press freedoms, for legitimate national security reasons, not simply because the leak is embarrassing. When the president lambasts leakers for imperiling national security and threatens to subpoena the press over embarrassing leaks, but then retweets news stories he finds favorable even if they are based on highly sensitive classified defense information, he erodes that credibility. He erodes the governments foothold in that delicate balance with the press.

It is unclear what the attorney generals statement about press subpoenas portends for Justice Department policy and for the delicate balance that has held for decades. Some legal commentators have noted that the department itself has a lot to lose in upsetting the status quo and potentially forcing an adverse First Amendment ruling. What is likely a more immediate threat to the balance is a president who lacks any regard for its fragility and for the importance of the governments credibility in its preservation.

Photo credit:Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

See the article here:

Trump Is Going After Legal Protections for Journalists - Foreign Policy (blog)

Augusta Sheriff’s investigator sued for alleged Fourth Amendment violations – The Daily Progress

Posted on by

WAYNESBORO A lawsuit was filed Tuesday against an Augusta County Sheriff's investigator accused of violating the constitutional rights of a man charged in Waynesboro with distribution of methamphetamine.

The suit against Sheriff's investigator Michael Roane was filedon Tuesdayby Nexus Caridades, a law firm sponsored by the Verona-based Nexus Services.

The suit says that dating back to 2011, Roane has harassed Loren Varner and more recently violated his Fourth Amendment rights. During a Jan. 11, 2017 search outside of a Waynesboro restaurant, the suit said Varner was forced to empty his pockets and have his body searched by Roane, and a drug dog was used to search Varner's truck. The suit said this occurred after Varner had gone to the restaurant to eat.

According to the suit, a handler of the drug dog slapped Varner's truck, causing the dog to falsely alert on the truck and serve as probable cause for a search of the truck.

The suit said the search of Varner's truck produced no drugs or material related to drugs. Roane asked Varner to submit to a breath analysis, and Varner refused. Varner was not arrested or charged in the Jan. 11 encounter.

The suit seeks damages and attorney fees against Roane for what it calls Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure violations stemming from the search of Varner's truck and the allegedly false drug alert'' of the dog on the man's truck.

The suit also mentions that Varner was charged in connection with a May 6, 2016 incident involving a sting by a drug task force that included Roane.

According to court records, Varner was charged in Waynesboro in 2016 with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The charge carries a 20-year minimum jail sentence upon conviction.

Waynesboro Police Capt. Mike Martin said he found the suspect with nearly two pounds of meth, and arrested him as a result of a joint investigation with Roane. The trial date for Varner is scheduled for Sept. 5.

Nexus CEO Mike Donovan said he hopes the case shines a light on the potential for Fourth Amendment violations by police.

The Fourth Amendment means absolutely nothing if officers believe they can fraudulently manufacture probable cause, Donovan said. This officer has a track record of these type of allegations, and the people of Augusta County deserve better."

Donovan was referring to a second case in which Roane is also a defendant. The federal lawsuit filed in June by Nexus Caridades on behalf of Desiree Watford of Fishersville charges Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional violations.

Roane, and a Sheriff's deputy identified as John Doe, are accused of an unlawful seizure and arrest of Watford.

Previously, Roane was a defendant along with Augusta County Sheriff Donald Smith in a $1.2 million federal lawsuit filed by Nexus. That suit, filed by Nexus Services in 2016, charged law enforcement officers with harassing and violating the constitutional rights of Nexus employees, including Donovan. Nexus, however, dropped that lawsuit in March.

Attempts to reach Augusta County Smith about the most recent lawsuiton Wednesdaywere not successful.

Read the original here:

Augusta Sheriff's investigator sued for alleged Fourth Amendment violations - The Daily Progress

The First Amendment (Literally) Banned in DC – ACLU (blog)

Posted on by

Can the government ban the text of the First Amendment itself on municipal transit ads because free speech is too political for public display?

If this sounds like some ridiculous brain teaser, it should. But unfortunately its not. Its a core claim in a lawsuit we filed today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritys (WMATA) restrictions on controversial advertising.

The ACLU, ACLU of D.C., and ACLU of Virginia are teaming up to represent a diverse group of plaintiffs whose ads were all branded as too hot for transit: the ACLU itself; Carafem, a health care network that specializes in getting women access to birth control and medication abortion; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Milo Worldwide LLC the corporate entity of provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

To put it mildly, these plaintiffs have nothing in common politically. But together, they powerfully illustrate the indivisibility of the First Amendment. Our free speech rights rise and fall together whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above.

Lets start with the ACLU. Earlier this year, following President Trumps repeated commentary denigrating journalists and Muslims, the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.

The ACLU inquired about placing our ads with WMATA, envisioning an inspirational reminder of our founding texts, with a trilingual twist, in the transit system of the nations capital. But it was not to be: Our ad was rejected because WMATAs advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions or intended to influence public policy.

You dont have to be a First Amendment scholar to know that something about that stinks.

Our free speech rights rise and falltogether whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above.

Lets start with the philosophical argument. WMATAs view is apparently that the litany of commercial advertisements it routinely displays involve no issues on which there are varying opinions. Beyond the obvious Coke-or-Pepsi jokes, theres a dark assumption in that rule: that we all buy commercial products thoughtlessly. Buy beer! (Dont think about alcoholism.) Buy a mink coat! (Dont think about the mink.) That is, WMATA sees varying opinions only when they relate to something it recognizes as controversial. And as the Supreme Court recently reminded us, the government violates the First Amendment when it allows only happy-talk.

And now to the practical. This is a policy so broad and vague that it permits WMATA to justify the ad hoc exclusion of just about anyone. And the broad set of plaintiffs in this case confirms that.

Despite the fact that Carafem provides only FDA-approved medications, its ad was deemed too controversial because it touched the third rail of abortion. Carafems proposed ad read simply: 10-week-after pill. For abortion up to 10 weeks. $450. Fast. Private. As we at the ACLU know all too well, as states continue to erect draconian barriers to the right to choose, information about and access to abortion care is more critical than ever. Yet Carafems ad was apparently rejected simply because some people think otherwise.

One of PETAs intended advertisements depicted a pig with accompanying text reading, Im ME, Not MEAT. See the Individual. Go Vegan. Despite the fact that WMATA routinely displays advertisements that encourage riders to eat animal-based foods, wear clothing made from animals, and attend circus performances, PETAs side of this public debate was the only one silenced by the government.

WMATAs advertising agency suggested that with some changes, ACLU and PETA might be able to get their advertisements accepted. Perhaps PETA could remove the Go Vegan slogan from its advertisement? But for the ACLU, Youll have to dramatically change your creative. In other words, as long as we dont try to make anyone think, we might get the right to speak.

That brings us to our final client: Milo Worldwide LLC. Its founder, Milo Yiannopoulos, trades on outrage: He brands feminism a cancer, he believes that transgender individuals have psychological problems, and he has compared Black Lives Matter activists to the KKK. The ACLU condemns many of the values he espouses (and he, of course, condemns many of the values the ACLU espouses).

Milo Worldwide submitted ads that displayed only Mr. Yiannopouloss face, an invitation to pre-order his new book, Dangerous, and one of four short quotations from different publications: The most hated man on the Internet from The Nation; The ultimate troll from Fusion; The Kanye West of Journalism from Red Alert Politics; and Internet Supervillain from Out Magazine. Unlike Mr. Yiannopoulos stock-in-trade, the ads themselves were innocuous, and self-evidently not an attempt to influence any opinion other than which book to buy.

WMATA appeared to be okay with that. It accepted the ads and displayed them in Metro stations and subway cars until riders began to complain about Mr. Yiannopoulos being allowed to advertise his book. Just 10 days after the ads went up, WMATA directed its agents to take them all down and issue a refund suddenly claiming that the ads violated the same policies it relied on to reject the ads from the ACLU, Carafem, and PETA.

The ideas espoused by each of these four plaintiffs are anathema to someone as is pretty much every human idea. By rejecting these ads and accepting ads from gambling casinos, military contractors, and internet sex apps, WMATA showed just how subjective its ban is. Even more frightening, however, WMATAs policy is an attempt to silence anyone who triestomakeyou think. Any one of these advertisements, had it passed WMATAs censor, would have been the subject of someones outraged call to WMATA.

So, to anyone whod be outraged to see Mr. Yiannopoulos advertisement please recognize that if he comes down, so do we all. The First Amendment doesnt, and shouldnt, tolerate that kind of impoverishment of our public conversation. Not even in the subway.

At the end of the day, its a real shame that WMATA didnt accept the ACLUs advertisement the agency could really have used that refresher on the First Amendment.

Read this article:

The First Amendment (Literally) Banned in DC - ACLU (blog)

The Fired Google Engineer, the First Amendment, and the Alt-Right – Xconomy

Posted on by

Xconomy San Francisco

Google software engineer James Damore confirmed to Bloomberg on Monday that Google fired him for circulating a lengthy memo on his views that women are biologically less suited to tech work than men.

His manifesto was spread through Googles internal communication channels over the weekend, and obtained by Gizmodo and other tech publications. Damore expressed his opinion that women are underrepresented in tech companies such as Google, not because of discrimination, but because, on average, women are naturally more inclined to concentrate on feelings rather than on ideas. Damore also professed his belief that women are more neurotic or prone to anxiety than men, as well as less competitive and more inclined to be collaborative.

Google acted quickly, firing Damore on grounds that his memo violated the companys code of conduct by propagating harmful gender stereotypes, according to the New York Times. Damore had criticized Google for its initiatives to promote diversity.

Damores ideas were roundly denounced by both women and men in the tech industry, including former Googler Yonatan Zunger, who is now at machine learning startup Humu. Zunger, an experienced engineer, said in a Medium post Saturday that traits Damore defines as female, such as empathy and the ability to collaborate, are the core traits which make someone successful at engineering.

But in the memo, Damore claims his views are shared by many fellow Googlers who have told him privately that theyre grateful to him for raising opinions they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired.

Its Damores claim that Google stifles dissent, in the memo he called Googles Ideological Echo Chamber, that may keep his ideas in the forefront of public debate. Signs are that he may sue Google, claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights, or of his rights under federal labor law.

If Damore challenges his firing on grounds that Google suppressed his free speech rights, hes unlikely to win, legal scholars say. But Damore may already have achieved part of his aims, in spades. His opinionsthough offensive to manyare now part of a public discussion in arenas much broader than Google internal memos.

Damores case has dragged Google into the ongoing political and cultural battle between right and left in the U.S.between conservative groups that resist diversity efforts, and employers such as universities that try to counter discrimination. This could turn out to be a bigger headache for Google (and potentially other companies) than an employment rights suit it may be likely to win.

David French, writing for the conservative magazine National Review, blasted Google for Damores firing. Of course Google did this, French wrote. Of course an increasingly radical progressive enclave cant handle thoughtful critiques of its ideological monoculture.

Google is a private company and has wide legal latitude to discipline its employees for their speech, but make no mistakethis is a direct assault on the American culture of free speech, French added.

Another writer forNational Review, Jim Geraghty, eagerly anticipates legal action by Damore. When does one employee holding an opinion contrary to another employees become harassment? My guess is that a lawsuit at Google is going to explore that question under the harsh glare of public scrutiny, Geraghty wrote.

Other conservative outlets, includingThe American Conservative and Breitbart,also jumped into the fray. Breitbart published a flurry of at least nine stories supporting Damores views.

On the other end of the political spectrum, The Guardians Owen Jones wrote under the headline, Googles sexist memo has provided the alt-right with a new martyr.

Jones wrote, Youre going to hear a lot about [Damore] in the coming weeks: hell probably be a star guest on alt-right shows and the rightwing lecture circuit, splashed on the front covers of conservative magazines, no doubt before a lucrative book deal about his martyrdom and what it says about the Liberal Big Brother Anti-White Man Thought Police.

The portrayals of Google as a standard-bearer for anti-discrimination policies, or a radical progressive enclave, can be dizzying, because Google has actually been trying to counter the impressionbased on its own workplace statisticsthat its hiring and promotion policies significantly disadvantage women and minority members.

If Damore files a lawsuit against Google for suppressing his views against equal opportunity measures, it might be heard even while the U.S. Department of Labor continues its investigation of a significant gender wage gap at Google.

Prior to his firing, Damore had already sought recourse by filing a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, arguing that Google was trying to silence him, according to the New York Times.

Stanford University law professor Richard Thompson Ford, who specializes in anti-discrimination law and workplace rights, says Damore has a slight, though not non-existent, chance at winning a lawsuit against Google over his firing.

The First Amendment claim is not strong, Ford says.

Many people think the amendment gives them the right to free speech on the job, but thats a misreading Next Page

Bernadette Tansey is Xconomy's San Francisco Editor. You can reach her at btansey@xconomy.com.

Continued here:

The Fired Google Engineer, the First Amendment, and the Alt-Right - Xconomy

Politicians, Social Media and the First Amendment – KDWN

Posted on by

Photo by Bethany Clarke/Getty Images

An emerging debate about whether elected officials violate peoples free speech rights by blocking them on social media is spreading across the U.S. as groups sue or warn politicians to stop the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union this week sued Maine Gov. Paul LePage and sent warning letters to Utahs congressional delegation. It followed recent lawsuits against the governors of Maryland and Kentucky and President Donald Trump.

Trumps frequent and often unorthodox use of Twitter and allegations he blocks people with dissenting views has raised questions about what elected officials can and cannot do on their official social media pages.

Politicians at all levels increasingly embrace social media to discuss government business, sometimes at the expense of traditional town halls or in-person meetings.

People turn to social media because they see their elected officials as being available there and theyre hungry for opportunities to express their opinions and share feedback, said Anna Thomas, spokeswoman for the ACLU of Utah. That includes people who disagree with public officials.

Most of the officials targeted so far all Republicans say they are not violating free speech but policing social media pages to get rid of people who post hateful, violent, obscene or abusive messages.

A spokeswoman for Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan called the Aug. 1 lawsuit against him frivolous and said his office has a clear policy and will remove all hateful and violent content and coordinated spam attacks.

The ACLU accused Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin of blocking more than 600 people on Facebook and Twitter. His office said he blocks people who post obscene and abusive language or images, or repeated off-topic comments and spam.

Spokesmen for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Mia Love, who were singled out by the ACLU, said people are rarely blocked and only after they have violated rules posted on their Facebook pages to prevent profanity, vulgarity, personal insults or obscene comments.

We are under no obligation to allow Senator Hatchs Facebook page to be used as a platform for offensive content or misinformation, spokesman Matt Whitlock said.

Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute, which sued Trump last month, said theres no coordinated national effort to target Republicans. The goal is to establish that all elected officials no matter the party must stop blocking people on social media.

If its mainly used to speak to and hear from constituents, thats a public forum and you cant pick and choose who you hear from, Fallow said.

Rob Anderson, chairman of Utahs Republican Party, scoffed at the notion that politicians are violating free-speech rights by weeding out people who post abusive content.

You own your Facebook page and if you want to block somebody or hide somebody, thats up to you, Anderson said. Why else is there a tab that says hide or block?

Court decisions about how elected officials can and cannot use their accounts are still lacking in this new legal battleground, but rules for public forums side with free-speech advocates, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley Law School.

For instance, lower court rulings say the government cant deny credentials to journalists because their reporting is critical, he said.

These are government officials communicating about government business. They cant pick or choose based on who they like or who likes them, Chemerinsky said.

But public officials may be able to legally defend the way they police their social media pages if they prove their decisions are applied evenly.

Its got to content-neutral, Chemerinsky said.

Trumps use of social media and the Supreme Courts decision in June striking down a North Carolina law that barred convicted sex offenders from social media is driving the increased attention to the issue, said Amanda Shanor, a fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

More and more of our political discussion is happening online, Shanor said. Its more important that we know what these rules are.

Here is the original post:

Politicians, Social Media and the First Amendment - KDWN

Tails 3.1 has been released but you’ll need to do a manual upgrade – Neowin

Posted on by

As planned, the Tails project has announced the general availability of Tails 3.1. The developers are strongly encouraging users of older releases to upgrade as soon as possible because it closes several security vulnerabilities and upgrades the Tor Browser to the latest version based on the newest Firefox ESR.

The two major changes in Tails 3.1 are that the Tor Browser has been upgraded to 7.0.4 and the Linux kernel has been upgraded to 4.9.30-2+deb9u3. The new Tor Browser will be the main reason to upgrade, to make sure that bugs in the browser arent being exploited to remove the anonymity of the user. The final detail to note is that this release is based on the new Debian 9.1, which was released in July.

There are also a few problems which have been fixed in Tails 3.1, they are:

To get the new update, you can either do a clean install or do a manual upgrade. Both options have well-detailed instructions accompanied by screenshots making it easy to create your new Tails live USB. Unfortunately for existing users, the automatic upgrade from 3.0.1 to 3.1 has been disabled due to some issues, but Tails 3.0 users can jump directly to 3.1 with an automatic upgrade.

Tails 3.2 is scheduled for release on October 3, and version 3.3 will be out on November 14. While the team behind the OS seems to be good at meeting their deadlines, you should assume that the dates listed could change. To see where the project is headed over the coming years, feel free to give their roadmap a look.

Source: Tails

Originally posted here:

Tails 3.1 has been released but you'll need to do a manual upgrade - Neowin

At last, a kosher cryptocurrency: BitCoen – The Register

Posted on by

Viacheslav Semenchuk, a Russian entrepreneur, has just launched a cryptocurrency for Jews.

Similar in concept to Bitcoin, it is called BitCoen, "the first Kosher cryptocurrency," as described on the company's Russian website. In the US, Coen and its variant Cohen are common surnames in the Jewish community; in Hebrew, they mean priest.

Semenchuk, according to RT, has invested $500,000 in the project and hopes to raise as much as $20m through an initial coin offering that aims to sell 100m worth of BitCoen digital tokens to investors.

With that much market capitalization, BitCoen would rank at about 115th among the more than 1,000 cryptocurrencies tracked by coinmarketcap.com. Bitcoin's current market cap is about $55bn.

The company began a pre-sale through its website on Wednesday, offering 300,000 BitCoen (under the abbreviation BEN) at a price of $0.75 per token. It expects to launch a wider offering in October.

"Our team came to the conclusion that the Jewish community is the world's only community within the framework of which a full-fledged and self-sufficient cryptocurrency can be created and recognized by the whole community," said Angelika Sheshunova, COO of BitCoen, in an email to The Register.

"We expect that the cryptocurrency will cover all Jewish communities around the world. And the main guarantor of stability here is that the keys from the management of the cryptocurrency will be in the hands of the most respected members of the community."

Sheshunova said there's no way to guarantee that only members of the Jewish community will use BitCoen. "However, the functionality of the system and the inherent features are most appealing to the members of the Jewish community," she said.

Said features include a plan to give 10 per cent of released coins to Jewish organizations as "tzedakah," or charity, and governance by a six-person community council.

Sheshunova explained, "Important decisions in the system are made by the 'council of six.' Each of them is well-respected in the Jewish community, and will represent their preferred course [in] business, politics, finance, technology, public service, [and] culture."

BitCoen will be "a completely new blockchain with its own architecture, its own security and special functionality," according an emailed quote that Sheshunova attributed to Andrei Nedobyolsky, CTO of the project.

That name returned no results in Google, Bing, or Yandex. The Register asked if BitCoen could provide more details about Nedobyolsky's technical qualifications, but has not heard back.

According to Sheshunova, BitCoen plans to make some of its code available, eventually. "In accordance with the ideology of blockchain, we plan to share some of the code that is critical for system users, with requirement specifications of security, transparency and functionality," she said. "However, this will be done after the launch of the main elements of the system."

BitCoen's lack of technical clarity appears to be matched by its muddled public communication. On Wednesday, the firm published a post in Russian on Medium to dispel what it characterized as a fiction about its project.

The post states that BitCoen is still negotiating with the Chief Rabbi of Russia (there are apparently two at present) and Jewish community leaders about potential involvement with the project. It also suggests that the currency will be controlled by those participating in the community and not just Jews.

"All media statements that 'the currency is controlled by the Jews' we consider unconcrete and far-fetched in order to increase the readability and popularity of articles and materials, where these statements are applied," the post says, as rendered by Google Translate.

Sponsored: The Joy and Pain of Buying IT - Have Your Say

Read more:

At last, a kosher cryptocurrency: BitCoen - The Register

Bitbay to launch cryptocurrency trading platform in India – Economic Times

Posted on by

Mumbai: Poland based bitcoin exchange platform Bitbay is all set to open trading in India. The company which allows trading in multiple cryptocurrencies other than bitcoins is planning to expand its technology based workforce in the country as well.

"We will allow six more cryptocurrencies besides bitcoins for trading in India, we wish to associate and work closely with the government to remove all misconceptions around bitcoins and cryptocurrencies of the world," said Chafik Abdellaoui, chief information officer, Bitbay.

The company is planning to start demo operations on August 14 and initiate full fledged trading from August 24. They have a current workforce of 10 people here which they plan to increase to around 50 by end of the year.

At a time when bitcoins are gaining notoreity in this world as a mode of payment for ransomware, Bitbay plans to introduce full KYC norms for traders on its platform along with security applications like two factor authentication to ensure genuine users trade on its platform.

In Europe the platform records 50 million worth transactions on its platform and records around 10,000 to 1 lakh trades per day depending on price fluctuations and allows trading in 17 different cryptocurrencies. The company is also closley working with the Government of Poland to propel wider adoption of cryptocurrency in the country.

Read the rest here:

Bitbay to launch cryptocurrency trading platform in India - Economic Times

Coinbase Becomes First Bitcoin ‘Unicorn’ – Fortune

Posted on by

A Bitcoin company has finally attained the "unicorn" title, an honorific bestowed upon startups valued at more than $1 billion.

Coinbase , a brokerage that established itself as one of the biggest brands in a now-booming cryptocurrency market , has raised $100 million at a private valuation of $1.6 billion that includes the capital raised, the company tells Fortune. The venture capital firm Institutional Venture Partners led the round with participation by Spark Capital, Greylock Partners, Battery Ventures, Section 32, and Draper Associates.

Coinbase had for months been rumored to be raising around $100 million at a valuation of $1 billion or more, as the Wall Street Journal reported in June. That deal, its fourth, is now final.

In previous rounds, Coinbase had raised a total of $117 million at a private valuation approaching $500 million, as Fortune reported . That sum already made it one of the most well financed Bitcoin ventures around, next to Circle and 21.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter

Coinbase has been riding a wave of interest in cryptocurrencies in recent months. Virtual currency prices exploded this year with the resurgence of Bitcoin now trading at more than $3,400 per Bitcoin, well above its previous 2013 highs in the $900 rangeas well as the ascent of Ethereum , a rival cryptocurrency network that, for one thing, allows people mint and sell their own digital tokens .

Overall, the total market value for cryptocurrencies and tokens combined has soared to more than $120 billion from just under $20 billion at the beginning of the year. This exuberance has led many industry watchers to warn of a possible bubble .

Founded in 2012, Coinbase started as a Bitcoin wallet service that helped customers stash their digital wealth. The company later moved into the brokerage space, opening online exchanges where traders can swap or sell crypto coins.

This year has been a banner year for Coinbase. According to the company, it has facilitated the exchange of more than $25 billion in digital currency to date, five times more than the total sum it processed from its founding through the end of last year.

On Wednesday, Fidelity Investments, the asset manager, added the ability for customers to view the cryptocurrency holdings in their Coinbase accounts on its own website.

During the recent Bitcoin blockchain fork in which a faction of the network broke off and created a new currency, Bitcoin Cash, some customers blasted Coinbase for saying it did not intend immediately to support the new money. Eventually, Coinbase reversed course and agreed to allow users to access their potential Bitcoin Cash holdings at the start of next year.

Coinbase has also been battling an IRS inquiry in recent months that seeks information about cryptocurrency buyers and sellers for tax purposes. The agency most recently said it would exempt people from the probe who transacted less than $20,000 in digital currency.

These hiccups haven't slowed the company's pace. Coinbase said it would put the newly raised money toward bolstering its engineering and customer support teams, opening a New York office for its professional trading operations, and continuing to develop Toshi, an Ethereum-based messaging and wallet app that it debuted last year.

Coinbase isn't the only recent benefactor from crypto mania that has lately gripped the world. GV, the venture capital arm of Alphabet , formerly known as Google Ventures, recently led a $40 million funding round for Blockchain , a cryptocurrency wallet provider based in London. Other investment firms like Andreessen Horowitz, Union Square Ventures, and Sequoia have been backing so-called crypto hedge funds, like Polychain Capital and Metastable , that invest in digital tokens and cryptocurrencies too.

Here is the original post:

Coinbase Becomes First Bitcoin 'Unicorn' - Fortune

Cryptocurrency Wallet Jaxx Announces Support for Cofound.it-Approved Tokens – CoinJournal (blog)

Posted on by

Blockchain projects listed on Cofound.it will see their tokens automatically approved for integration into Jaxx, a multi cryptocurrency and digital token wallet. A new partnership formed between the two companies is intended to support and promote the best and most innovative projects in the blockchain space by improving their tokens liquidity.

This will mean the crypto community has immediate access to hold, transmit, and swap some of the worlds best cryptocurrencies natively and securely within their Jaxx wallet, said Jan Isakovic, CEO and co-founder of Cofound.it.

Singapore-based Cofound.it provides a blockchain-powered platform that connects startups with investors and experts for funding and advice. It aims to create a full startup ecosystem, using the power of the blockchain to fuel interactions, Isakovic told Reuters.

We believe that the key advantage of token crowdsales are not funds collected, but the fact that the funds come from engaged supporters. They act as evangelists and early adopters, helping fuel very fast initial growth when compared to traditional startups.

The platform intends to become the place where the best startups in the blockchain industry go to expand their potential and find investment. It would also be a venue where experts with proven track records offer their expertise, and where investors go to find the best projects to support.

Cofound.it distributes its own cryptocurrency called CFI, which holders can use to pay for services on the platform such as early access to listed token crowdsales, and project submission. CFI are also used to pay partners and experts who participate and contribute on the platform.

Besides Cofound.it tokens, others that will launch directly into the Jaxx wallet include Santiment, Maecenas, Musiconomi, Digital Assets Power Play, and X8currency, the companies said.

Anthony Di Iorio, founder and CEO of Jaxx and Decentral, said the partnership with Cofound.it gives a stamp of approval to the currencies and projects hosted and trading within our ecosystem.

We are confident that through our partnership with Cofound.it, Jaxx will help to bring greater stabilization and further growth to the entire blockchain community via our universal command center for universal technologies which is needed to mature the nascent crypto market, he added.

Jaxx is currently undergoing a significant platform expansion with more tokens integrations to come in the near future. Jaxx currently supports Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH, and Litecoin, among other cryptocurrencies.

The wallet also enables crypto-to-crypto exchange with in-wallet conversion via Shapeshift.

See more here:

Cryptocurrency Wallet Jaxx Announces Support for Cofound.it-Approved Tokens - CoinJournal (blog)

Bitstamp Will Add Ether Trading to Cryptocurrency Exchange – CoinDesk

Posted on by

European cryptocurrency exchange Bitstamp will launch new trading pairs for ether next week.

Beginning on August 17, Bitstamp will add markets denominated in US dollars, euros and bitcoin for the ethereum-based digital currency. As part of the release, Bitstamp also revealed a new pricing structure for its markets, which unifies the fees it assesses among the exchange'strading pairs.

In an effort to promote the new markets, Bitstamp will waive trading fees for those pairs until October 1. It will continue to offer discounts through the end of the year.

Bitstamp is one of the last major cryptocurrency exchanges to list ether. In statements, the exchange indicated that it will add support for additional assets, framing the unified fee structure release as part of that process.

Founded in 2011, Bitstamp is one of the world's oldest bitcoin exchanges. According to data from CoinMarketCap, Bitstamp operates the third most voluminous exchange in US dollar terms, reporting about $43 million in trades over the past 24 hours.

The addition of ether comes amid new developments in that digital asset's market. As CoinDesk reported yesterday, ether prices crossed the $300 line for the first time in a month.

Ether markets have subsided somewhat since then, trading at roughly $294 at press time.

Image via 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].

See the article here:

Bitstamp Will Add Ether Trading to Cryptocurrency Exchange - CoinDesk

Buoyant bitcoin stirs crypto-bubble fears – CNBC

Posted on by

It is mainly the new "token" cryptocurrencies that are issued in ICOs with no regulatory oversight, which have exploded since the start of the year, that are causing the most anxiety.

One, the "Useless Ethereum Token", which appears to have been set up as a way of showing how worthless many of the ICOs really are, is nonetheless changing hands for 3 cents a unit. "No value, no security, and no product. Just me, spending your money," its website states.

"It's just so easy to raise money on an ICO right now, it just feels like there's a gold rush going on there," said Moffat. "Some of the new currencies - beyond bitcoin and Ethereum - could crash to zero."

By mid-July, about $1.1 billion had been raised in ICOs this year, roughly 10 times more than that in the whole of 2016, according to cryptocurrency research firm Smith + Crown.

The rapid ascent of ICOs prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to warn last month that some ICOs should be regulated like other securities.

This is new digital territory and how the rapidly proliferating cryptocurrency market will play out is anyone's guess.

While critics say the highly correlated nature of the currencies means the weakness of newer entrants could bring the whole house down; others argue market forces will ensure the best players prevail.

"Will some of these (currencies) go away? Of course," said Vias of Ripple.

"We're going to see Darwinism in real-time here. Only the strong will survive."

Here is the original post:

Buoyant bitcoin stirs crypto-bubble fears - CNBC