YourObserver.com | Former NSA executive becomes author in Lakewood Ranch YourObserver.com A line out of his bio says Harb, who worked 39 years with the National Security Agency (NSA), "applied a wide variety of analytic and language skills and techniques to the production of high-value intelligence" and that he "managed large complex ... |
See the original post here:
Former NSA executive becomes author in Lakewood Ranch - YourObserver.com
Always lawful and subject to strict oversight. Those are the NSA's defenses any time someone leaks something about its surveillance programs or obtains documents indicating abuse of snooping powers. It gets a little old when it's document after document showing the astonishing breadth of the NSA's surveillance programs or the continual abuse and misuse of these powers.
The Hill has dug through some recently-released documents and memos from the NSA which show long-term abuse of surveillance programs. The NSA recently ditched part of its Section 702 collection because it just couldn't stop hoovering up Americans' communications. This was "incidental," according to the NSA, and supposedly impossible to stop. But the incidents detailed in these documents suggest a lot of over-collection happened because no one noticed and, if anyone did, no one cared.
They detail specific violations that the NSA or FBI disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Justice Department's national security division during President Obamas tenure between 2009 and 2016. The intelligence community isn't due to report on compliance issues for 2017, the first year under the Trump administration, until next spring.
The NSA says that the missteps amount to a small number less than 1 percent when compared to the hundreds of thousands of specific phone numbers and email addresses the agencies intercepted through the so-called Section 702 warrantless spying program created by Congress in late 2008.
This is about the only place where any American can become part of the "one percent:" as the unwitting subject of NSA surveillance. NSA spokesman Michael Halbig says evidence of misuse is a sign the oversight is working. But oversight is also supposed to aid in prevention, not just detection of past misuse. And the NSA's internal oversight isn't nearly as "robust" as Halbig attempts to portray it.
The Hill reviewed the new ACLU documents as well as compliance memos released by the NSA inspector general and identified more than 90 incidents where violations specifically cited an impact on Americans. Many incidents involved multiple persons, multiple violations or extended periods of time.
For instance, the government admitted improperly searching the NSAs foreign intercept data on multiple occasions, including one instance in which an analyst ran the same search query about an American every work day for a period between 2013 and 2014.
The NSA also passed on intel to the FBI and CIA without properly minimizing it and made other dissemination errors. The documents show the NSA was also slow to inform other agencies of its minimization failures. Notification is supposed to made within five days of discovery, but in some cases it took the NSA more than three months to inform intel recipients of the error.
This information has been released at a critical time for the NSA. Section 702 powers are sunsetting this year and could be subject to additional modifications prior to their renewal. The FBI --perhaps even more than the NSA -- is looking for a clean reauthorization of Section 702 programs. This administration favors a clean re-auth, which means complaints about a 1% violation rate aren't likely to change anyone's mind. But 1% of several hundred million yearly searches is still a very large number of violations. If Google or Microsoft suffered a breach affecting the privacy of 1% of its users, it would be a huge problem even if the number of affected accounts amounted to a rounding error.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chair Pete Hoekstra -- a former surveillance state cheerleader -- now worries the NSA's collection powers have increased far past the point of reason. As he points, 1% simply isn't an acceptable failure rate.
One percent or less sounds great, but the truth is 1 percent of my credit card charges dont come back wrong every month. And in my mind one percent is pretty sloppy when it can impact Americans privacy.
Read more:
Released Documents Show More Section 702 Violations By The NSA - Techdirt
Reality Winners supporters said they delivered petitions with more than 16,000 signatures to the U.S. Justice Departments headquarters in Washington Thursday, asking the agency to drop its charges against the accused National Security Agency leaker.
Among those delivering the petitions on Whistleblower Appreciation Day were representatives from several groups, including CodePink, Defending Rights & Dissent, RootsAction.org, Whistleblower and Source Protection Program and Stand with Reality, a nonprofit campaign that is supporting Winners case through advocacy and fundraising.
"We should not be charging whistleblowers acting in the public interest, disclosing information responsibly to journalists, as if they were traitors to our country. Anyone who cares about a free press should be concerned about her case, Rainey Reitman, co-founder of Stand with Reality, said in a prepared statement.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Federal prosecutors have accused Winner of leaking to The Intercept online news outlet a top-secret NSA report about Russias meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The Intercept published the report, which says Russian military intelligence officials tried to hack into the U.S. voting system just before last Novembers election.
A federal grand jury has indicted Winner, 25, on a single count of "willful retention and transmission of national defense information. She faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Winner, who is being held in the Lincoln County Jail, has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are defending their proposed rules for safeguarding top-secret information during her trial, now set for Oct. 23 in Augusta. Winners defense attorneys have argued those rules could block her from getting a fair hearing. Specifically, they have said the governments proposed protective order could prevent Winner from reviewing evidence in the case, including classified information. That, they said, would amount to a violation of the former Air Force linguists Sixth Amendment right to confer with her attorneys.
RELATED:Accused NSA leakers attorneys push back against proposed secrecy rules for trial
But in a court papers filed this week, the prosecutors said she will be given access to the records she is entitled to see under the Classified Information Procedures Act and as required by due process. But her attorneys must ask the court for her to see such documents, the prosecutors said.
The scope of classified discovery in this case has not yet been determined. It may include, for example, classified information to which the defendant has not previously had access, the government said in its court filing. Given the charge against the defendant, disclosing that information to her could further jeopardize national security. If defense counsel believe that they must disclose specific information provided in discovery to the defendant, that should be the subject of a subsequent motion.
Winners attorneys are also seeking permission to quote from records already in the public domain, including newspaper articles. Prosecutors have pointed to case law that says disseminating classified information that has already been made public could harm government intelligence sources and operations. Further, Winners defense team is objecting to proposed requirements that they identify expert witnesses they ask to review classified evidence, saying that would amount to an unfair advantage for prosecutors.
The government has a legitimate interest in knowing who is accessing classified information, the prosecutors said. The defense has not identified any prejudice that would result from disclosing experts identities to the government. Accordingly, the government should receive advance notice of all personnel for whom the defense seeks access to classified discovery and an opportunity to submit objections to the court if necessary.
Read the original post:
Accused NSA leaker's supporters ask feds to drop charges against her - MyAJC
BEIJING: National security advisor Ajit Doval's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping did not yield any breakthrough that could end the current standoff in Doklam. Analysts, however, said the cool off in the recent weeks may give leaders enough time to find a solution.
Doval met Chinese President Xi Jinping and other senior officials on Friday at the summit of Brics national security advisers (NSAs) in the Chinese capital.
There has only been a slight improvement of the situation that prevailed after Chinese leaders insisted for weeks that there could be no meaningful dialogue until Indian troops withdraw from their positions at the disputed site in Doklam.
There is little possibility of Xi going back on the demand that Indian troops must withdraw ahead of the celebrations of the 90th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army on August 1, a Chinese analyst said.
"At best, the high level of belligerence can be allowed to taper off, giving leaders enough time to find a solution. But even this is not easy because there are hawkish voices on both sides," a Chinese analyst said, requesting anonymity.
The Chinese leadership got away by imposing an air flight control zone over islands disputed with Japan and creating artificial islands in the disputed South China Sea despite US resistance. This is why it is very is difficult for the government to explain India's refusal to budge an inch in Doklam, he explained.
Doklam row becoming internal crisis for China The Doklam issue is fast becoming a domestic political problem for China's leaders who need to deal with a section of hawkish Communist Party members demanding action to "push back" Indian troops, sources said. This is happening ahead of a crucial party congress that will elect leaders to top positions later this year.
China also faces a risky situation on its border with North Korea and has hugely increased its military presence fearing some dangerous moves from Pyongyang.
In appearances before the media, both Doval and the Chinese leaders stuck to the agenda of the security dialogue of Brics countries that brought together top security officials from the member countries.
Doval also joined other security officials in calling on Xi, who said that Brics should play a bigger role in international affairs.
It was clear that both India and China want to keep the discussion on the Doklam stand-off restricted to the bilateral area instead of making it an issue requiring the attention of Brics. In his speech, Doval said the Brics countries should show "leadership in countering terrorism".
The grouping should also play a key role on "strategic issues of regional and global importance" while focusing on "areas where we have consensus", he said.
The Chinese president said the five countries in Brics were faced with a "complex international political and economic security situation". They should communicate more on financial cooperation, cultural exchanges and security issues.
Go here to see the original:
NSA Ajit Doval and Xi Jinping meet but fail to break Doklam logjam - Economic Times
This article first appeared on the Just Security site.
It emerged late last week that President Trump has reportedly queried his lawyers regarding the nature and scope of his authority to pardon individuals including himself.
Over the weekend, Trump tweeted a nothing to see here message while asserting his pardon power was complete, presumably meaning absolute.
Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox
While not limitless, the authority of the President to pardon is undeniably substantial. The President cannot pardon for prospective crimes or violations of state criminal law. There is a strong argument that he cannot pardon himself and certainly cannot insulate himself or others from the conviction of impeachment, as expressly stated in the Constitution.
But other than these and perhaps other narrow limitations, a Presidents pardon powers is vast. Indeed, the Presidents power to pardon others including his family members for past federal crimes, even without evidence of specific criminal investigation or prosecution, is arguably plenary in nature.
Not surprisingly in the context of the investigation into Russian interference in our election, Trumps reported interest in pardons has generated an avalanche of commentary exploring the legal limits of presidential pardon authority.
Donald Trump walks along the West Wing colonnade with his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law and Senior Advisor to the President for Strategic Planning Jared Kushner, March 17, 2017 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty
Less attention, however, has been paid to why President Trump has not exercised his pardon authority yet, especially with so many of his confidants caught in a web of a criminal inquiry. This is the issue I focus on here.
Some may argue that if Trump were to pardon close confidants say his campaign manager Paul Manafort, the Trump-identified foreign policy advisor Carter Page, Senior Advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner or his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn the optics would be undesirable and the political fallout substantial.
This is undoubtedly true, President Gerald Ford arguably never recovered politically from the pardoning of President Richard Nixon. But given Trumps record, I am highly skeptical that these political concerns are a sufficient deterrent to exercise his authority.
Unpleasant optics because of his flagrant norm violations thus far have hardly served as significant inhibitions for this President.
He did not release his tax returns as every president has for half a century. He ignored anti-nepotism laws. He discussed on the campaign trail imprisoning his political opponent. He ignores the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
The norm transgressions are so substantial that t he Just Security site has a section dedicated to it. There is an outcry. But that outcry and the optics simply do not seem to bother this President or his most ardent supporters. Nor do they seem sufficient to alienate him from almost all of the elected Republicans in Congress, at least so far.
It must be something else. Most likely the President has been informed of one important fact about his pardon power, anyone he pardons is no longer under criminal jeopardy for federal crimes and, accordingly, Fifth Amendment protection for self-incrimination evaporates.
Manafort, Page, Kushner, and Flynn at this point pre-pardon need not answer any questions from Robert Mueller, Congress or anybody. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
Once pardoned, however, there is no legal jeopardy for past federal crimes. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment can no longer be a shield and permit Trumps pardoned associates from refusing to answer questions under penalty of perjury.
This creates a paradox for President Trump. When he pardons an individual, they are free from possible prosecution but they are also uncloaked of their most robust constitutional protection.
This may well be why President Trump has not pardoned Flynn, for example. Given the reported substantial contacts between Flynn and Russian government emissaries, given Flynns patent falsities including on federal forms completed under penalty of perjury, Flynns only protection presently from being compelled to testify including possibly against the President and others is the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause.
Imagine if that was no longer a shield. Grand Jury, FBI Agents, Congress all could drill Flynn under oath. Any material prevarication would be punishable as perjury. At that point Flynns personal interest will be to tell the truth, even if that truth incriminates the President who fired him.
So the pardon of presidential associates is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, he will ensure they are not prosecuted if they committed crimes in furtherance of the Presidents interest. On the other, once pardoned, the interest of the pardoned associates likely diverges from the President.
If crimes were committed that implicate the President and his family and I do not believe we have sufficient evidence to answer that conclusively at this time prior to being pardoned, a Trump associate is 100 percent within their rights to simply say nothing. But not afterwards.
One caveat worth noting is that because the Presidents pardon power is limited to federal crimes, the Fifth Amendment may offer protection if the pardoned individual is still under jeopardy for state crimes.
However, I do not see this as a substantial issue at this point because in the main, the possible criminal liability of which we are presently aware in the Russia probe seem distinctly federal in nature, e.g., the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, failure to complete federal disclosure forms truthfully, false statements to the FBI, or obstruction of justice in a federal case, for example.
It is true that we cannot be certain where the investigation will go and it could probe violations of state law. This seems most likely with financial crimes. Money laundering, for example, is illegal both under federal law and New York state law (the most likely state jurisdiction relevant here). And in such fairly circumscribed cases, the pardoned individual would still enjoy Fifth Amendment protection in discussing facts of relevance to those cases.
But I dont think this wrinkle should distract from the main point: The Presidents exercise of his pardon power is not a panacea. There are political costs to be sure. Many will ask, why do you need a pardon if no crime was committed similar to how President Trump discussed a grant of immunity: If youre not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?
It will thereafter be a political cudgel and add to the narrative of a President hell-bent on covering up crimes he committed or that others committed on his behalf.
He fires Comey because of the Russia probe as President Trump himself made clear in the Lester Holt interview. He has confirmed his upset with Sessions because his recusal self-neutered the Attorney Generals ability to defend the President. He attacks Mueller in an attempt to discredit any future findings of wrongdoing. And if he pardons, the story will surely and understandably be that it is another attempt to evade accountability.
These political restraints, as in so many other areas, will not be sufficient to deter this President. However, the realization that anyone he pardons, unless also under jeopardy of state law prosecution, has lost the right against self-incrimination and can be compelled to testify truthfully under pain of contempt and perjury, may well explain this Presidents failure to pardon anyone thus far and may prove a continuing reason not to pardon associates in the future.
In this way, if the President exercises his pardon power down the road, it may signal a certain desperation. It may mean that the investigation is getting close. It will mean he has calculated that whatever the pardoned individual is compelled to testify under oath is less damaging to him and his interests than if the individual was not pardoned but squeezed by prosecutors. It will mean that the political weight of nothing to see here has been overcome by the legal weight of personal and family legal jeopardy.
Keith Harper is a Partner at Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP. From 2014 to 2017, he served as United States Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Go here to read the rest:
Why Hasn't Trump Already Pardoned Kushner, Flynn, Page and Manafort? - Newsweek
On July 19, 2017, the Second Circuit vacated the convictions and dismissed the indictments of two individuals accused of playing a role in the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). United States v. Allen, No. 16-898-cr, Slip Op. at 3 (2d Cir. July 19, 2017). The ruling was based on the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides that [n]o person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. US Const. amend. V. The Second Circuits decision clarifies that this protection against self-incrimination is an absolute trial right that applies to all criminal defendants in US courts (including non-citizens) and to all compelled testimony (including testimony given during a foreign governments investigation). United States v. Allen, No. 16-898-cr, Slip Op. at 55. The courts clarification of the Fifth Amendments scope has important implications for US antitrust enforcers prosecuting international cartels and for individuals ensnared in cross-border criminal investigations alike.
The charges against the defendants in United States v. Allen stemmed from government investigations by the United States, the United Kingdom and others, concerning allegations that several banks had manipulated the LIBOR, a benchmark interest rate for short-term inter-bank loans that is also used as a reference rate for a variety of globally traded financial instruments. The defendants were initially investigated by the United Kingdoms Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and made self-incriminating statements during compulsory interviews with FCA officials. The FCA provided transcripts of defendants compelled testimony to a third individual under investigation, Paul Robson, who reviewed the transcripts in detail. For reasons unknown, the FCA then dropped the charges against Robson, and his case was picked up by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Robson pleaded guilty and then cooperated with the DOJ by providing information about the defendants that led to their indictment and by testifying against them at trial.
On appeal, the Second Circuit threw out both defendants convictions and dismissed their indictments, holding that the Fifth Amendments prohibition on the use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies even when a foreign sovereign has compelled the testimony. Slip Op. at 80. The Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination is an absolute trial right that applies in any American criminal proceeding, and so the defendants status as non-citizens did not alter the courts analysis. Id. at 37-38. In short, the court explained, compelled testimony cannot be used to secure a conviction in an American court. This is so even when the testimony was compelled by a foreign government in full accordance with its own law. Id. at 38.
Cross-border government investigations into price-fixing and other matters of international scope are becoming increasingly common, and United States v. Allen serves as an important reminder that many jurisdictions outside the United States do not have the procedural safeguards in place that the United States Constitution demands. A foreign investigation that does not satisfy these safeguards may produce evidence that does not hold up in court. Where criminal proceedings have a foreign origin, discovery should be taken to reveal potential evidentiary shortcomings, such as witnesses who are tainted by exposure to compelled testimony. Consideration should also be given to the effect of such shortcomings, if any, in potential follow-on civil suits, where standards can be less demanding.
2017 McDermott Will & Emery
Read this article:
WisBar | Blood Test Suppressed: Police Misinformed Driver on Consequences of Refusal WisBar All things considered, Blackman's consent to the blood draw was not voluntary and free, and was not an unconstrained choice, it was the product of coercion, express or implied, and therefore was invalid under the Fourth Amendment, Abrahamson wrote. |
See the article here:
Blood Test Suppressed: Police Misinformed Driver on Consequences of Refusal - WisBar
Things that should not be abridged.
Starting in September, Texas will allow you to open-carry swords. The state already allows you to carry around blades shorter than 5.5 inches, but this fall that restriction will be lifted and Texans can get their saber on.
I think thats great. Seriously. I am totally cool with the right to bear swords. Its an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. A sword is way closer to an 18th-century musket than any of the sub-assault-pocket-Uzis turning our country into a shooting gallery today. If you could get people to turn in their guns to receive a personally crafted sword, Id vote to melt down the Intrepid for steel and enslave Hitori Hanzo to do the work.
Guns kill innocent bystanders. The only innocent bystander ever to be killed by a sword was Polonius, and Hamlet felt super bad after that happened. Guns kill indiscriminately. Swords kill their intended target. If we accept that in an free society, some killing must be done in the fight for scarce resources, swords are tactical weapons while guns are weapons of mass destruction.
And while were here, lets remember that a sub-5.5 inch knife is probably way more deadly than a freaking broadsword. Christ. An enemy will make you look like a bloody sprinkler system in the time it takes for you to unsheathe your katana. Youre not a damn Jedi. If Texas is already allowing knives (and guns!), then nobody is made less safe by toting around a sword. Once the F-150 comes out with stab-proof seating, nothing will even be significantly damaged by these things.
I dont know that you can ever go back again. I dont know that you can ever get rid of all the guns lurking in our country. But our country made a wrong turn when we broadly interpreted arms to include rapid-fire hand-held artillery units, as opposed to something limited to personal stabbing weapons and slow reload rifles.
Hannibal didnt need guns. Batman doesnt need guns. Guns are for cowards. If you want to defend your people, you should be limited to the ax aisle at Walmart.
New Texas Law To Allow Open Carry Of Swords, Machetes [CBS Dallas-Fort Worth]
Elie Mystal is an editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.
Go here to see the original:
Open-Carry Swords: A Civilized Second Amendment Right - Above the Law
Second Amendment rights must be preserved The Second Amendment is needed more today than at any other time in history.
As the military, A well-regulated Militia, grows in size, the more the rights of the people to bear arms must be protected. The same is true as the size of law enforcement grows, the rights of the people to bear arms must be protected.
The Second Amendment is necessary, if not more so, today than when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. It does not need changing or tweaking in any manner. What it needs is to be applied as written.
We cannot totally leave our security, the defense of our families and the defense of our property to law enforcement officers. We must be self-reliant enough to protect ourselves, our family and our property from those who would cause us harm or try to take our property.
Those who believe citizens right to bear arms should be curtailed or eliminated in any manner should do a bit of research first on violent crime and then on what happens when arms are taken away from the citizens of a country.
As gun ownership decreases or arms are confiscated, violent crime rates increase. Yes, violent crimes involving guns decrease, but violent crime by other means increase so much that the overall violent crime rate increases. This is true as well within cities that have curtailed arms ownership. Chicago is a prime example!
Germany confiscated arms at the beginning of World War II. The Nazis then killed millions of citizens. When China confiscated arms, China then went on to kill millions. These are just two examples of what happens when the citizens lose the right to bear arms.
I spent 20 years in the military. I am also a big fan and supporter of law enforcement. We need both a strong military and effective law enforcement force. But these two cannot do it alone; they need the help of the citizens and that means that the citizens should be free to bear arms in support of law enforcement and the military to protect their families and property!
See the original post:
Second Amendment rights must be preserved - The Wilson Times (subscription)
Washington Post | Mo Brooks: 'Second Amendment' | Campaign 2018 Washington Post July 24, 2017 1:14 PM EDT - Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who is running for Alabama's Senate seat in a special election primary on Aug. 15, released a campaign video invoking the GOP baseball practice shooting in June. (Mo Brooks for Senate) ... |
Continued here:
Mo Brooks: 'Second Amendment' | Campaign 2018 - Washington Post
This opinion was handed down in Wrenn v. District of Columbia,a case wherein the D.C. Circuit ruled that the citys good-reason requirement for concealed carry issuance is not constitutional. When the ruling was issued, Breitbart News reported that the court issued a permanent injunction, barring future use of the good-reason clause to limit concealed carry permit issuance.
The Wrenn ruling was welcomed with open arms by concealed carriers, as it came roughly a month after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) refused to hear Peruta v. California. In Peruta, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home for self-defense.
Perutas majority opinion was written byJudge William Fletcher and said, We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. And contrary to what the D.C. Circuit ruled this week, the Peruta ruling upheld Californias good cause for concealed carry permit issuance.
So we have two views, diametrically opposed, on two separate coasts. On the east coast, the D.C. Circuit defended the right to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, and on the west coast, the Ninth Circuit ruled that no such right exists.
As this split festers, we may end up getting the SCOTUS review that Justice Clarence Thomas has been urging his colleagues to undertake. Hecalled it indefensible when they refused to hear Peruta,and if D.C. appeals the D.C. Circuit decision, his colleagues will get the opportunity to review a similar case Wrenn in the shadow of an obvious circuit split.
Thomas is already on record saying SCOTUS ought not sit idly by as state-level gun control cripples the Second Amendment.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.
Go here to see the original:
News & Observer | Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? News & Observer Call for the UNC-system Board of Governors to develop a policy preventing schools from shield[ing] individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even ... |
More:
Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? - News & Observer
We've been covering a recent First Amendment lawsuit targeting President Donald Trumpa novel legal argumentin which Twitter users claim their constitutional rights were violated because the commander-in-chief blocked them from his personal @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle.
To be sure, it's a digital-age-basedconstitutional theory about social media rights in a day and age when politicians, from the president on down, are using their private accounts to discuss public affairs.
Now there's some legal precedent on the matter. It comes from a federal judge in Virginia who said that a local politician had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent because the politician briefly banned the constituent from the politician'spersonal Facebook account.
"The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards," US District Judge James Cacheris wrote Tuesday in a suit brought by a constituent against Phyllis Randall, the chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Virginia.
The judge didn't issue any punishment against Randall, as the Facebook ban for constituent Brian Davison only lasted about 12 hours. That said, the judge noted Randall committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by barring the constituent who posted about county corruption. What's more, the judge pointed out from the first sentence of the ruling that "this case raises important questions about the constitutional limitations applicable to social media accounts maintained by elected officials."
Randall's Facebook page, the judge ruled, "operates as a forum for speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution."
This suit, at its most basic level, is nearly identical to the one lodged against Trump two weeks ago. Like the Virginia suit, the lawsuit against Trump names the chief executive's private account, which Trump uses on an almost daily basis as his political mouthpiece to the world.
"The @realDonaldTrump [Twitter] account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.
The Trump suit was brought by a handful of Twitter users Trump blocked after they posted critical comments. The lawsuit, to which Trump has yet to respond in court, seeks a ruling that the president's actions were unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, Judge Cacheris noted that Randall still had the right to moderate Facebook comments and that it's not always unconstitutional to block commenters.
"Finally, government officials have at least a reasonably strong interest in moderating discussion on their Facebook pages in an expeditious manner. By permitting a commenter to repeatedly post inappropriate content pending a review process, a government official could easily fail to preserve their online forum for its intended purpose," the judge wrote.
What's more, the judge said that allowing online speakers to hijack or filibuster online conversations would "impinge on the First Amendment rights" of other forum participants.
"Given the prevalence of online 'trolls,' this is no mere hypothetical risk," the judge said.
Judge Cacherishad recently tossed a similar lawsuit from Davison, a software consultant. In that suit, Davisonclaimed his First Amendment rights were breached because a prosecutor had removed hiscomments from the prosecutor's official Facebook page. The judge noted that the deletion of the comments was acceptable because they were "clearly off-topic" comments.
Go here to see the original:
Politicians' social media pages can be 1st Amendment forums, judge says - Ars Technica
A Hanover County supervisors lawyer accused Style Weekly of publishing fake news while an attorney for the Richmond newspaper called on jurors to defend the First Amendment at the start of a defamation trial that began Friday.
County Supervisor Sean Davis sued the publication after Style Weekly published articles in 2015 by Peter Galuszka suggesting Davis improperly used his position on the Board of Supervisors to influence Hanover schools.
Davis complaint arose from a Dec. 8 article titled Are Politics Threatening an Open Educational Environment in Hanover?
The article suggests Davis interfered with classroom instruction at Hanover High School and had teachers suspended or disciplined if they present ideas or images that Davis considers too liberal.
The article cited a letter submitted to Attorney General Mark Herring from a parent that asked state police to investigate Davis for intimidation of teachers and staff.
The letter, according to the article, pointed to an instance involving a popular English teacher whom Davis took issue with because of what he said in class and because of a wall of photographs, and drawings kept in a student newspaper activities office.
The article, citing the letter, goes on to state that the English teacher was given a three-day suspension that was dropped after the teacher hired a lawyer.
Davis lawsuit also cites another passage from the article in which a Hanover High School parent expressed worry that school officials wont confront Davis.
Davis attorney Steven Biss, told jurors the articles in question contain false accusations of Davis based on unreliable sources and were a reckless disregard for the truth. Biss characterized the articles as a false narrative, fake news.
There are so many false statements, Biss told jurors.Mr. Davis does not become involved in School Board matters.
Attorney Conrad Shumadine, representing Galuszka and Style Weekly publisher Lori Collier Waran, told jurors the articles served the public interest and emphasized the importance of free speech.
The people of Hanover County needed to know, Shumadine said,.
Shumadine said Galuszka thought the issues of alleged censorship in Hanover were serious and that his sources were credible and appropriately vetted. Galuszka tried to speak to school officials but the school division would not comment.
Shumadine said Galuszkas questions for Davis were a chance to have his perspective represented, but that Davis did not answer specific questions. Later, after the first article was published, a lawyer for Davis called Style Weekly.
The newspaper offered to have the story corrected if anything was false, have a letter to the editor published or have Davis do an interview with Galuszka, Shumadine said.
Their response was to file a lawsuit, Shumadine said.
Public officials typically must prove a publication printed false material and in doing so acted with actual malice, which would mean knowingly publishing false information or acting with reckless disregard for the facts.
Biss said the questions Galuszka emailed Davis were loaded. Biss said Galuszka based his reporting off unreliable sources and Style Weekly published the articles because it felt they were salacious and would sell well.
The motive was money, Biss said.
Shumadine said the issue of censorship in Hanover started a year prior to the articles publication when Davis allegedly tried to ban the documentary Thomas L. Friedman Reporting: Searching for the Roots of 9/11 from Hanover schools. The documentary delves into Muslim perspectives of the Sept. 11 attacks and the rise of terrorist groups.
Biss said accusations that Davis had teachers suspended and materials banned in Hanover schools were false. When Davis heard from hundreds of people concerned about the showing in 2014 of the documentary to Hanover High School students, the supervisor brought up those concerns to Hanovers joint education committee, Biss said.
Davis expressed concerns about the documentary at a Board of Supervisors meeting in 2014, calling a showing of the video disrespectful and un-American.
He had concerns about the 9/11 video because hes a Marine, Biss said of Davis.
Shumadine told jurors that Davis did intervene to have Hanover teachers disciplined, and that a student organization eventually formed to protest against what it felt like was unfair handling of teachers and curriculum.
Shumadine cited a letter from Davis sent to County Attorney Sterling Rives communicating that Davis expected the concerns of Hanover residents about an education matter be investigated.
Rives was the first and only witness to be called to the stand by Biss on Friday. Biss line of questioning focused on how Davis handling of complaints about education matters was appropriate and followed standard procedures.
Attorney Brett Spain, on cross-examination, asked Rives about whether Davis calling for the investigation into the concerns of Hanover residents about a teacher was extraordinary. Rives couldnt think of any other supervisor who had made such a request.
Before the opening arguments, a jury was narrowed down from more than 70 people. The judge in the trial, which is scheduled to last six days, is Michael Levy from Stafford County.
The Style Weekly lawsuit isnt the only one Davis is involved with. In January, Davis sued his former employer, the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, along with the lobbying groups president and CEO Donald Hall over allegations of fraud and defamation. A jury trial for the complaint is scheduled for April in Richmond Circuit Court.
Original post:
Dear Editor:
Re LETTER: Ill take separation of church and state, by Eileen D. Minogue, July 20, 2017: I recently read an article by Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, which I found most enlightening, including the following paragraphs:
The First Amendment, which places freedom of religion as number one, protects the churches from intrusion by the government, not the government from religion.
[Alexis de] Tocqueville asked himself how a country so vast, so diverse, so open to everybody, so bold, under a constitution so daring and unprecedented could ever survive. His answer? Because the American people are religious!
Id like to hope our country has not strayed so far that its people no longer profess what early Americans professed in their Pledge of Allegiance one nation, under God.
Advertisement
Those who object have the freedom to eliminate what they feel objectionable, but not impose their views on the majority.
Joan Saehloff
Port Ewen, N.Y.
Editors note: The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress in 1942. The words under God were added to the pledge in 1954.
Read more here:
LETTER: First Amendment is a one-way protection for religion - The Daily Freeman
Dear Editor: There have been issues on campuses across the U.S. on free speech. As the argument of hate speech versus free speech continues, many speculate that public campuses have liberal biases. This is due to disproportionate numbers of conservative speakers getting rejected to speak on campuses compared to liberal speakers. A CNN article titled War on campus: The escalating battle over college free speech suggests that these speculations are true: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education maintains an incomprehensive database of more than 300 attempts to disinvite campus speakers since 2000. About three-quarters of the attempts involved pressure from liberals.
In Wisconsin, GOP representatives have responded to these issues by proposing free speech policies on the UW System. These policies are suggested as precautionary, threatening future speech disrupters with suspension and/or expulsion. But such policies are criticized as damaging the rights of those who oppose the views of speakers and minorities.
The relationship between Americas future leaders and the United States First Amendment must continually be closely observed.
Currently on the Press Freedom Index, the United States is ranked at the 43rd position. Obamas onslaught on whistleblowers and Trumps attempts to thwart press coverage are listed as problems that contribute to the United States position.
Media conglomerates are an obstacle to press freedom. A statistic from morriscreative.com shows that in 2012, six media companies owned 90 percent of American media, compared to 50 companies that owned 90 percent of American media back in 1983.
These attacks on freedom of speech and press threaten one of our most sacred rights. People should care more about free speech.
Michael Flores
Madison
Send your letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.
Continue reading here:
Michael Flores: Attacks on our First Amendment need more attention - Madison.com
Net Neutrality
Americans are slowly realizing the significance of the potential consequences of the FCCs current net neutrality regulations being repealed. These regulations once protected small businesses and content providers from intrusion by private, monopolistic internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon and Comcast. Before net neutrality, ISPs could disrupt, slow, and even censor content on the internet without any liability. This controversy reached its climax in 2007 when Verizon was exposed for blocking group chat conversations coming from a large pro-choice abortion group. However, many defenders of net neutrality are currently overlooking the political dynamic between net neutrality and the development of cryptocurrencies.
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have greatly benefited from past net neutrality regulations. Bitcoins price has increased 300 percent since Obamas regulations were put in place in February 2015. This growth has been attributed to many factors, including the governments of Japan and China becoming more tolerant of cryptocurrency use. Not to mention countless initial coin offerings (ICOs) also hitting the worldwide market. The last two years have been the most profitable and evolutionary period for cryptocurrencies since their inception. However, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have been in the middle of a financial bubble, and a series of interventions from ISPs could force that bubble to implode which may not be a bad thing. Without net neutrality regulations, ISPs can function without any accountability. What that will mean for cryptocurrencies remains yet unknown.
Its no secret that many American corporations lean staunchly conservative, and would happily wipe out a disruptive technology that works against their interests something like cryptocurrencies. ISPs and the U.S. government maintain close ties, something which has become increasingly obvious in the past few months. The appointment of former Verizon lawyers such as Ajit Pai, as the head of the FCC is just one example, and state policies continue to keep 60 percent of Americans confined to just a single internet provider option.
The concentration of power amongst ISPs allows the government to more effectively regulate and influence the internets evolution. When and if cryptocurrencies are viewed as a problem by the U.S. government, the internet service provider will be looked at to find the solution. Under the current status quo, Bitcoin will not be considered as an alternative monetary system because it is too difficult to control and tax. Not to mention that Congress position on virtual currencies is still unclear, and interpretations of the Stamp Payments Act of 1862 may provide Congress with the legal footing to leverage against cryptocurrencies.
The Act states that:
Whoever makes, issues, circulates, or pays out any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation for a less sum than $1, intended to circulate as money or to be received or issued in lieu of lawful money of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
A simple way in which an ISP can affect the attractiveness of cryptocurrency investment is by slowing down broadband speeds of blockchain sites, which would in turn slow down transaction speeds. Yet, the speed (or lack thereof) of transactions has seemingly had zero effect on investment. Thus, cryptocurrencies themselves arent necessarily at risk unless ISPs conduct structural attacks on blockchain servers. By nature, blockchains are immune to human intervention. However, the internet provider holds the ability to implement a partition or delay attack. These attacks could effectively create a blackhole, where all bitcoin transactions are lost and made impossible to track. This could lead to wasted processing power and doubled spending for miners. However, these concerns are coming from the lawyers and businessmen, not the engineers.
Engineers see this problem as a perfect example of why blockchain was designed the way it was. To them, repealing net neutrality regulations would invite the possibility of having to reposition themselves back onto an I2P network, like Kovri.
Net neutrality while it does embody the decentralization mantra of blockchainis far from a requirement for the functionality of blockchain. The future of the monetary system is a global currency free from human intervention. If Bitcoin fails to survive the coming storm, it would be because of structural errors not ISP intervention. In addition, if the ISPs start a war against blockchain and cryptocurrencies, the internet may experience an accelerated evolution of decentralization. In the context of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, net neutrality may be a blessing in disguise, forcing further development in the industry.
Continue reading here:
What Does Net Neutrality Mean for the Future of Cryptocurrency? - Futurism
Have you ever had a moment where you didn't know whether to laugh or cry? That's the situation playing out in the graphics card market because of the cryptocurrency mining boom, a topic we've covered extensively in recent months. But just when we thought there was nothing left to report on the matter, it's come out that some of the most active Ethereum miners are renting Boeing 747 airplanes to ship orders of graphics cards. Yes, seriously.
That is the sort of money that is at stake here. Cryptocurrency is highly volatile, Ethereum included. For miners with massive setups, shipping by sea is just too slow.
"Time is critical, very critical," Marco Streng, chief executive of Genesis Mining, told Quartz. "For example, we are renting entire airplanes, Boeing 747s, to ship on time. Anything else, like shipping by sea, loses so much opportunity."
Some 36,000 units of Ethereum is collectively mined each day. At around $200 per unit, miners are competing for $7.2 million worth of Ethereum per day. At one point just a few weeks ago, those figures were doubled with Ethereum spiking to $400.
"Time counts so much. We are using the fastest delivery possible," Streng added. "You risk the opportunity to mine for the days you are delayed. If you are deploying 10 days later, you are losing 10 days of miningthat is the cost."
Streng notes that Ethereum was trading for around $10 per unit at the beginning of the year, before ballooning to $400 in June, thus creating an "incredible economic incentive for people to start mining." And also a shortage of graphics cards, as Streng is aware.
It's tough to get a read on the market and where things will go from here. If we're being optimistic, we can look at the recent drop in value and rise in difficulty to mine Ethereum. This has caused some casual miners to dump their used hardware on Ebay, albeit at inflated price tags. We can take that as a sign that the market is starting to creep back towards normalcy.
On the flip side, miners who have more invested are willing to ride the ups and downs. And apparently business is still good enough that not only can they afford to rent Boeing 747s to ship graphics cards, but they can't afford not to.
Even AMD has acknowledged the impact of mining on graphics cards shipments. This is something AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su touched on during a recent earnings call.
"Relative to cryptocurrency, we have seen some elevated demand," Dr. Su said. "But it's important to say we didn't have cryptocurrency in our forecast, and we're not looking at it as a long-term growth driver. But we'll certainly continue to watch the developments around the blockchain technologies as they go forwards."
Dr. Su also acknowledged that inventories of GPUs is "quite lean" at the moment. The good news? AMD is "working on replenishing" stock, adding that the company's priority is on the gaming market. Let's hope it plays out that way in the coming months, especially with Vega right around the corner.
See the article here:
Cryptocurrency miners are renting Boeing 747s to ship graphics ... - PC Gamer
Fortune has published an examination of a secretive cryptocurrency hedge fund that is backed by some of Silicon Valleys top venture capital firms. The fund was co-founded by Naval Ravikant, Joshua Seims, and Lucas in 2014, and has produced returns of over 500%.
Also Read:Hedge Funds Are Quietly Investing in Bitcoin
Metastable Capital is a cryptocurrency hedge fund that has attracted investment from many top venture capital firms despite largely shunning publicity since its inception in 2014. Metastable was co-founded by Angellist CEO, Naval Ravikant, cryptography expert, Lucas Ryan, and former angel investor, Joshua Seims.
Fortune has reported that Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Union Square Venture, Bessemer Venture Partners, and Founders Fund are among Metastables major investors all of whom participated in Polychain Capitals fundraiser earlier this year.
Metastable takes a long term perspective when assessing the markets, aiming to invest in projects that it expects will be profitable over the course of at least a decade. Theres a handful of, say between five and 10 of these major use cases that could be trillion-dollar blockchains, Seims told Fortune. Its all very long-term focused, and we think were in super early days right now. It really comes down to which do we think is the strong enough technology, that we think can win.
Metastables website describes two funds offered by the firm, Metastable Balanced, and Metastable Edge. The Balanced fund seeks to take a value-investor approach to investing, guided by deep technical understanding of the protocols to select a portfolio that we believe will deliver the greatest returns, holding a large portion of bitcoin, in additional to several smaller sized positions in major altcoins. Edge is designed for investors that already have substantial Bitcoin holdings, and holds ETH and a variety of smaller coins from more recent ICOs, although the ETH portion fluctuates based on whether we believe that the value from new coins is going to accrue to the new coin or to ETH.
Metastables flagship cryptocurrency hedge fund has yielded impressive performance throughout 2017. At present, Fortune asserts that Metastables Balanced fund is invested in approximately a dozen different markets, including bitcoin, ethereum, and monero of which it is reported to own roughly 1% of total supply. During mid-March, Metastable reported returns of 539%, however, since March, bitcoin, monero, and ethereum have more than doubled prompting Fortune to estimate Metastables returns since inception are greater than 1,000%. On June 23 it is alleged that Metastable reported total assets of $69 million.
Metastable requires a minimum investment of $1 million, and charges a 2% management fee and a 20% performance fee.
Do you think that cryptocurrency funds will continue to out perform mainstream hedge funds in coming years? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!
Images courtesy of Shutterstock and Wikipedia
Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check ourtoolssection.
Continued here:
Secretive Cryptocurrency Hedge Fund Metastable Examined - Bitcoin News (press release)
The price of digital currency bitcoin rose Friday, putting it on track for a modest weekly gain, while rival cryptocurrency Ether extended its recent weakness.
At latest check, a single bitcoin BTCUSD, -3.71% was up 3.8% to $2,783.18, according to cryptocurrency research-and-data site Coindesk. While it remains down from an all-time high above $3,000 on June 11, its recent trend has been largely positive. It is on track for its second straight positive session, and it is up 3.3% over the past week.
The market capitalization of bitcoin rose to nearly $46 billion, meaning it once again accounts for more than half of the entire market cap for cryptocurrencies which stands at $89.9 billion, according to Coinmarketcap.com.
This is the first time since May that bitcoin has represented 50% of all crypto assets, according to Tuur Demeester, a bitcoin investor who is also the founder of Adamant Research. Earlier this year, cryptocurrencies topped $100 billion in market capitalization.
Thus far in 2017, bitcoin prices have gained more than 180%.
Related: Bitcoin investors: things may get very ugly soon, if this chart overlay is right
Ether, the digital currency that runs on the Ethereum network, fell 5.7% to $192.70 on Friday, extending its recent weakness. For the week, Ether is down more than 15%, trimming its market cap to $18.2 billion.
The chief rival to bitcoin remains the bigger year-to-date gainer by farit is up nearly 2,300% in 2017although it has struggled since hitting an all-time peak of $395.16 on June 13. At current levels, Ether is trading at levels last seen in May, according to Coindesk.
Much of this weakness has come on recent regulatory moves, including a recent announcement from the Securities and Exchange Commission that signaled it would scrutinize a recent torrent of so-called initial coin offerings, or ICOs. ICOs refer to previously unregulated offerings of digital currencies, many of which were tied to the Ethereum blockchain.
Read: What is an ICO? What investors need to know about initial coin offerings
More broadly, cryptocurrencies have come under increasing fire of late.
Howard Marks, the co-chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, said they were nothing but an unfounded fad, adding that bitcoin was based on a willingness to ascribe value to something that has little or none beyond what people will pay for it.
Visit link:
Bitcoin prices rise as Ether extends recent weakness - MarketWatch