When Police Misread Tea Leaves They Violate the Fourth Amendment – Cato Institute (blog)

Police militarization and excessive force have become increasingly pressing issues in American society. Fortunately, the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Justice Neil Gorsuchs old stomping ground held yesterday that innocent victims of improper police procedures during dynamic drug raids have some protections. Even if the court didnt fully address the issues Cato raised in our brief, the ruling in Harte v. Board of Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas is a step forward.

In 2011, Robert Harte and his two children visited a garden store to buy tomatoes for his 13-year old sons school project. Little did they know that Sergeant James Wingo of the Missouri State Highway Patrol was watching the store and recording the license plate numbers of the visitors, assuming that they were there to buy marijuana despite little evidence for that assumption. The Johnson County Sheriffs Office then examined the Hartes trash on two occasions, finding about an ounce of saturated plant material. Because they evidently couldnt tell the difference between tea and marijuana, they field-tested the substance, which tested positive for marijuana.

In an inspiring display, the police launched a military-style raid the Hartes home. At 7:30 in the morning, they pounded on the Hartes door, forced Mr. Harte to the ground when he answered, and searched their home for three hours. As it became increasingly clear that there was no marijuana in the house, the police started to search for any kind of criminal activity, a far greater sweep than what a warrant to search for marijuana and drug paraphernalia allows. Heaping further indignities on the family, the officers also left canine units in the house longer than necessary to give them extra training. The police apparently wanted to turn lemons into lemonade by retroactively turning an early-morning drug raid that didnt find any drugs, lest we forget into a training exercise.

After the district court granted summary judgment for the police, the Hartes appealed and Cato filed an amicus brief. We arguedthat the police violated an important Fourth Amendment rule that goes back to the roots of English common law by failing to knock and announce their presence in anything but a literal sense. They also exceeded the scope of their warrant to look for any criminal activity instead of just drugs. We urged the Tenth Circuit to reverse the district court, clarify the Fourth Amendment standard for assessing police raids, and remand for further proceedings.

The Tenth Circuit mostly agreed with Cato on the Fourth Amendment issue. Two judges on the three-judge panel found that the district court had been wrong to grant summary judgment to the police on the search and seizure issue, with Judge Carlos Lucero alluding briefly to the knock-and-announce requirement. It was a convoluted opinion that took a long time to produce because of each judge writing separately and different sets of judges coming together on different parts of the ruling. Most importantly, Judge Gregory Phillips, joined by Judge Lucero, found that what the deputies learned early on in the search dissipated any probable cause to continue searching.

Ultimately, the judges only discussed in passing the police-militarization and general-warrant concerns raised by Cato and sided with the police on the excessive-force claims. Nevertheless, the court held that what the Hartes experienced qualified as unreasonable search and seizure and also let them continue with their state-law claims soHarte v. Board of Commissionersrepresents a positive development in the jurisprudence surrounding dynamic police raids.

Go here to see the original:

When Police Misread Tea Leaves They Violate the Fourth Amendment - Cato Institute (blog)

What Jeff Sessions’ latest sanctuary cities funding threat could mean for Philly – Billy Penn

Dan Levy/Billy Penn

A memo from the beleaguered Attorney General targets a grant thats meant more than $5 million to the city.

Jul 26 2017 11:00 am

Philadelphia officials are reviewing new federal guidelines that could strip the city of some funding because of its sanctuary city policy.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo Tuesday detailing new regulations for cities that apply for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Programs, a Department of Justice program that provides funding to law enforcement agencies across the country to support a broad range of needs to prevent and control crime.

Over the last three years, the City of Philadelphia has received $5.1 million as part of the grant program, with $1.67 million of that coming in FY 16. Its unclear how much the city will request for FY17, if it requests funding at all.

Saying so-called sanctuary policies make all of us less safe, Sessions memo details new regulations for FY 17 recipients of the grant:

Those regulations, specifically the latter, appears to be at odds with the citys current sanctuary city policy (administration officials prefer the title Fourth Amendment City). Under current policy, law enforcement in the city of Philadelphia will not detain undocumented immigrants at the request of federal immigration officials unless the person is a convicted violent criminal or federal officials produce a criminal warrant.

City spokeswoman Lauren Hitt said Wednesday morning that the administration just saw the new conditions for the first time last night and is still reviewing with our outside legal counsel exactly what the new conditions entail and what our options are.

In March 2016 under the Obama administration, Department of Justice officials notified recipients of the grant including the city of Philadelphia that in order to keep the grant, jurisdictions would need to comply with an existing federal statutethat prohibits putting restrictions on communication between local agencies and federal immigration officials. City officials contend their policy does comply with federal law.

President Donald Trump campaigned on stripping away federal funding from sanctuary cities, though Mayor Jim Kenneyhas remained resolute when it comes to Philadelphias status.

First of all, weve changed the name from sanctuary city to the Fourth Amendment city,Kenney toldThe Inquirer after Trumps win in November.We respect and live up to the Fourth Amendment, which means you cant be held against your will without a warrant from the court signed by a judge. So, yeah, we will continue to be a Fourth Amendment city abiding by the Constitution.

See original here:

What Jeff Sessions' latest sanctuary cities funding threat could mean for Philly - Billy Penn

Restrictive concealed carry law violates Second Amendment, DC Circuit rules – ABA Journal

Second Amendment

Posted July 26, 2017 8:40 am CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the restriction violates the Second Amendment because it amounts to a total ban on the right to carry a gun for most residents. The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.), Reuters and the Washington Post covered the decision (PDF).

At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions, Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the majority. Traditional restrictions include licensing requirements, but not special-needs requirements, he said.

The Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach, Griffith wrote.

At least four other federal appeals courts have upheld similar restrictions, while a fifth has recognized a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Washington, D.C., gun law says the police chief may issue concealed carry permits to those who show good reason to fear injury to his person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.

To show good reason, applicants have to show evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicants life. District regulations interpret other proper reason to include employment involving the transportation of cash or valuables.

Washington, D.C., is considering asking the full court to hear the appeal, which had consolidated two casesWrenn v. District of Columbia and Grace v. District of Columbia.

Read the original post:

Restrictive concealed carry law violates Second Amendment, DC Circuit rules - ABA Journal

AG Paxton Joins Others in Supreme Court Brief to Protect Second Amendment Rights – eParisExtra.com (blog)

Attorney General Ken Paxton recently joined West Virginias amicus brief inRobinson v. United Statesalong with Indiana,Michigan, and Utah in the United States Supreme Court to protect against unjustified frisk searches occurring on the suspicion that a citizen is armed. The basis for this search places a burden on the Second Amendment right to carry a firearm.

In 1968,Terry v. Ohiodetermined that a law enforcement officer may both stop and frisk an individual when specific and articulable facts lead an officer to reasonably believe criminal activity is occurring. This search is justifiable when the officer believes the detained individual is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or others. However, anen bancFourth Circuit recently interpretedTerryto require only a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed. This interpretation allows officers to justify a frisk search solely on the suspicion of possessing a weapon during a lawful stop, regardless whether there is a reasonable belief that the individual is dangerous.

The Fourth Circuit interpretation places an unlawful burden on Second Amendment rights. The Constitution plainly guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, whether through open or concealed carry, said Attorney General Paxton. We must ensure the Court continues to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Original post:

AG Paxton Joins Others in Supreme Court Brief to Protect Second Amendment Rights - eParisExtra.com (blog)

NRA-ILA | Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed … – NRA ILA

FAIRFAX, Va. The right to self-defense scored an important victory on Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington D.Cs unconstitutional restrictions on issuing concealed carry permits. Today's ruling in Grace v. District of Columbiabuilds on the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of Americans to not only keep arms, but also to bear arms. D.C. residents have suffered under a near total ban on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. Todays ruling is an important step toward protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The decision overturns D.C.s requirement that citizens prove they have a good reason to obtain a concealed carry permit. For the overwhelming majority of permit applicants, this results in ade factoprohibition on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

In the majority decision, Judge Thomas Griffith wrote At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home", and that "The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs.

Governments should not be allowed to take constitutional rights away from law-abiding citizens, Cox concluded. This decision demonstrates that the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense is clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Read the original:

NRA-ILA | Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed ... - NRA ILA

THE BIGGER PICTURE: First Amendment issues – Finger Lakes Times

I recently took the photo that accompanies todays column on Swick Road off Route 89 in Romulus.

A woman contacted the Finger Lakes Times about the property. She found it offensive and thought it might even be illegal in New York. She says the resident claims to be a deer hunter. She has reported it to the town of Romulus and Seneca County officials.

It is likely not illegal, that is, unless it is regarded as a hate crime or hate speech against blacks being a reference to approval of lynching by the KKK. Then it is not just an ordinary rope.

If we give the home owner the benefit of the doubt, then the question is why keep the nooses hanging year-round knowing they might connote negative impressions to others?

For me, its just another instance of a pervasive attitude that seems to be taking shape culturally all over, where people just are going to do what they want regardless of right, wrong or political correctness.

Some might argue that this type of social and political climate is the result of Novembers presidential election. But the reality is what happens locally more often has a greater affect on peoples lives than anything nationally. And that includes politically.

The photo certainly raises First Amendment issues on both sides of the coin.

Briefly the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For me the First Amendment has very much become a focal point for things happening in the Finger Lakes region.

Lets take a look at the Geneva City Council. Not too long ago Mayor Alcock tried to move the public comment portion of the monthly meeting from the beginning of the session to the end. Since no ones knows how long each council meeting takes, often hours, I feel it was a clever way to stifle the voice of the public.

It was ultimately decided, however, to allow comments at the end and at the beginning with strict time limits imposed.

But that is nothing compared to what the Council did a couple of months ago. Its hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that a new rule was put into place that does not allow members of the public to address council members by name with their issues or complaints.

One of the guidelines from the current Rules and Procedures for Geneva City Council requires that All remarks shall be addressed to City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof.

I remind everyone it is 2017.

What may be a great example of political hypocrisy happened at a fairly recent meeting. Councilman Paul DAmico raised his concerns and was critical of city resident Jim Meaney and his website Geneva Believer, which often challenges the actions of Geneva city government. This when Meaney, who was at the meeting, was unable to directly address DAmico.

For a more detailed look at this issue go to genevabeliever.wordpress.com/author/geneva believer.

Now lets look at Seneca Falls Town Board meetings. Not only are signs banned from being brought into the meetings but if someone has a visual aid to show at the podium during their allotted time they are prevented from presenting it.

As a way to further restrict the publics right to free expression, they are holding the latest meetings in a room that only fits 80 people.

I have gone to several of the board meetings regarding the landfill issue. People certainly are passionate about the issue but never did I find it out of control nor inappropriate. Since the space in the new municipal building can only hold 80 people why not move the meetings to a larger venue that can accommodate more people if there is that much interest in an issue?

In a move that I feel is solely about control, a new rule also is now in place in Seneca Falls that does not allow anyone to stand unless speaking at the podium.

Again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

In Yates County the race for district attorney is once again getting down and dirty. Free speech is one thing but when one opponent distributes what are being considered false allegations against his opponent is another thing all together. That same candidate filed sworn statements under oath that his residency is at one address, and the petitions he filed state he lives at a completely different address a big no-no.

I cant leave Wayne County out. Even though New York State guidelines clearly state in Article 3 Election Officials, Statewide Provisions that local election officials are to establish rules allowing the admission of news media representatives to the area of the polling place where the canvass of ballots cast can be directly observed, the county Board of Elections has banned photographers from polling places the past few election days.

Once again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

See the original post:

THE BIGGER PICTURE: First Amendment issues - Finger Lakes Times

Republicans Toy with a Misguided Tax on the First Amendment … – LifeZette

President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have laudably made passing tax reform real tax reform, not just shuffling money from one group to another a top priority. Now, however, some supply-side economics skeptics are open to the possibility of taxing free speech a constitutional right to fill Washingtons coffers.

As you read this, the Big Six are meeting to discuss which deductions to keep oreliminate, and Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady must quell these whispers of taxing advertising. Imposing such a levy would trample on our countrys liberty and values, setting a dangerous precedent for further constitutional breaches in the foreseeable future.

As substantial pay-forssuch as the border adjustment tax begin to fall out of the publics favor, some in Congress have begun to look at provisions from Dave Camps 2014 tax reform proposal as a blueprint for replacement. Camps proposal would have changed the tax treatment of advertising from a normal, 100 percent deductible business expense to one that is only 50 percent deductible, with the rest being amortized over the course of a decade.

Self-proclaimed liberty-loving conservatives whoare prepared to advocate for such a provision need to reflect on American history after all, what did we fight the American Revolution over?

Perhaps the biggest boiling point for the then-British colonists was the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed an advertising levy of two shillings for every ad, among other printed material, no matter its circulation or cost. The provision was wildly unpopular so much so that the colonists engaged in mob violence to intimidate stamp-tax distributorsinto resigning, forcing the British Parliament to repeal it just a year later.

The principles and rallying cries that were brought on from the Stamp Act's introduction led to the colonists' rising in armed rebellion against their mother country a decade later.

The Continental Army won that war, and when they formed their new country they made sure to prevent the government from getting in the way of the freedom to advertise, as per the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

This is a law and precedent that has been abided by for centuries. Aside from some exceptions related to false and misleading content, the federal government has always respected the constitutional mandate to leave advertising alone. That's why the Supreme Court case Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) was overturned the bench's declaration that "the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of 'purely commercial advertising'" was 100 percent unconstitutional.

Now Congress wants to limit free speech by regulating the First Amendment one of our country's core founding principles as an excuse to extort more wealth from American businesses' pocketbooks? Camp's 50-50 proposal would treat advertising like an asset, such as a machine, instead of like an expense, such as research and salaries an unprecedented, unconstitutional move. (go to page 2 to continue reading)

See the article here:

Republicans Toy with a Misguided Tax on the First Amendment ... - LifeZette

Senate blocks first amendment to bill to repeal and replace Affordable Care Act – NY1

The Senate has blocked the first amendment to the bill to replace and repeal Obamacare.

Nine Republicans crossed party lines and voted against it.

The wide-ranging proposal by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell erased the law's tax penalties on people not buying insurance, and made cuts to Medicaid.

This came hours after the Senate voted to proceed with the debate on the Republican bill.

The vote was 51-50 after Vice President Mike Pence cast the tiebreaking vote.

Senator John McCain delivered a crucial vote in his first trip to the Senate floor since being diagnosed with brain cancer.

"I want to thank Senator John McCain, very brave man. He made a tough trip to get here and vote, so we want to thank Senator McCain and all of the Republicans. We passed it without one Democrat vote," said President Donald Trump.

"Lets trust each other. Let's return to regular order," McCain said. "We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle."

Meanwhile, Trump held a campaign-style rally, where he celebrated the vote to proceed.

He told the crowd we're now one step closer to ending what he calls the Obamacare nightmare.

Continued here:

Senate blocks first amendment to bill to repeal and replace Affordable Care Act - NY1

First Amendment Protects Right to Record Police Activity, Third Circuit Holds – JD Supra (press release)

The Third Circuit recently joined the growing consensus of courts recognizing that the First Amendment protects the act of recording police officers conducting their official duties in public. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, F.3d , 2017 WL 2884391 (3d Cir. July 7, 2017), two individuals brought claims against the City of Philadelphia and certain police officers for violating their First Amendment rights to record public police activity.

Amanda Geraci, a member of a police watchdog group, attended an anti-fracking protest at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in September 2012. When Geraci attempted to record the police arresting a protestor, an officer pushed her and pinned her to a pillar for over a minute, thus preventing her from observing or recording the arrest. Geraci did not interfere with any police activity. She was not arrested or cited.

In a consolidated case involving a similar issue, Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was on a public sidewalk when he observed police officers breaking up a house party in September 2013. The nearest police officer was 15 feet away from him. Using an iPhone, Fields took a photo of the incident. When Fields refused to obey an officers order for him to leave the area, the officer arrested and detained him, confiscated his phone, and opened several videos and photos on Fields phone. All charges against Fields were eventually dropped. According to Fields and Geraci, neither intended to share their recordingsthey merely wanted to record the police activity.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiffs First Amendment claims. Although the existence of the First Amendment right to record police activity was not in dispute, the Courton its owndeclined to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.

The Third Circuit reversed, noting that the District Courts focus on expressive intent ignore[d] that the value of the recordings may not be immediately obvious. The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating the material. It reiterated that this case is not about people attempting to create art with police as their subjects. It is about recording police officers performing their official duties.

The Third Circuits reasoning is not novel. Several other circuit courts have reached the same conclusion. Traditionally, and as the text of the Constitution suggests, the First Amendments protections extend to speech, press, assembly, the right to petition, and religion. But recording police activity does not seem to fit squarely into any of these categories.

Without expressly relying on any of the five traditional First Amendment protections, the Court held that, subject to reasonable restrictions, the First Amendment protects the publics right of access to information about their officials public activities. At first blush, it appears that the Court has created a new First Amendment right of access to information. However, the Courts reasoning shows that the basis for this right is the freedom of press, and a recognition that in todays world, everyday citizens play a role in delivering the news.

The Court writes that to record is to see and hear more accurately. Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media. Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information. As no doubt the press has the right, so does the public. The Court continues, [t]he publics creation of this content also complements the role of the news media. In addition to complementing the role of the traditional press, private recordings have improved professional reporting, as video content generated by witnesses and bystanders has become a common component of news programming.

Thus, Fields is a tacit recognition that in the age of electronics, the press is so much more than traditional broadcast news and newspapers. Today, everyone with a smartphone is essentially a member of the press and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Based on this expansive view of the press, the right to record police activity extends not only to the traditional press, but to the modern pressthat is, the public.

See the rest here:

First Amendment Protects Right to Record Police Activity, Third Circuit Holds - JD Supra (press release)

Gays Love The First Amendment Except When They Don’t – The Daily Caller

Many LGBT people who run in leftie circles were pleased with last months ejection of women carrying Star of David pride flags from Chicagos Dyke March. Seeing the intersectionality between lesbian equality and Palestinian rights, they didnt want any hint of support for Israel at their event, even if only vaguely via symbols carried by Jewish women.

Though that clash appeared spontaneous, the coordinators of a Slut Walk in Chicago next month have Tweeted their intention to follow suit: We still stand behind Dyke March Chicagos decision to remove the Zionist contingent from their event, & we wont allow Zionist displays at ours.

These radical lesbian and feminist organizers insist that in a free country they have the right to control their message and theyre correct. Constitutional jurisprudence on this the freedom of association and assembly is clear: any organization has the right to exclude groups and even whole classes of people from its membership and its events if it feels welcoming them would dilute its message.

The irony, though, is that the Dyke March would not have the freedom to expel people it considers Zionists without two important Supreme Court cases from twenty years ago in which get this the people suing for the right to participate were gay themselves.

In 1995, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston that St. Patricks Day officials had the right to exclude gay and lesbian contingents if they felt including them would change their message. Since the organizers were overwhelmingly pre-Pope Francis Catholics, practitioners of a lifestyle they considered sinful were not welcome.

Writing on behalf of all his colleagues, Justice David Souter wrote One important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say.

The gay groups couldnt cry discrimination. Free expression was more important.

Five years later, in Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, a sharply divided Court found that the First Amendment allowed private organizations like the Boy Scouts to exclude a gay person if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.

Again, the Supreme Court found that gay would-be Scouts and Scoutmasters could not hide behind allegations of discrimination in forcing an organization to accept them.

Which bring us back to Chicagos Dyke March. Had those two Court decisions gone the other way, the Jewish lesbians booted from the event could have sued for the right to participate.

Theres been a long-term war between discrimination claims and First Amendment freedoms. Because the gay community lost two battles at the turn of the millennium, LGBT groups are now free to tailor their messages by excluding outsiders.

Heres hoping theyll lose the next battle, too. The Supreme Court is about to consider a third clash between non-discrimination laws and the First Amendment (this time, both free expression and the free exercise of religion). Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will determine whether the government can force people who service weddings to use their creative endeavors in a way that treats all marriages equally.

As were seeing in Chicago, our civil liberties dont change when the parties switch sides. As the LGBT community ponders its stance on the wedding cake controversy, it might remember that freedoms funny. You never know when youre going to need it.

David Benkof is a columnist for the Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) and Muckrack.com/DavidBenkof, or E-mail him at [emailprotected].

Read the original post:

Gays Love The First Amendment Except When They Don't - The Daily Caller

Jitsi softphone for Windows OnSIP Support

Updated 10/26/2015

Jitsi version 2.8.5426 for Windows. Tested on Windows 7 64bit with SP1.

Each user has a set of credentials which will be needed to configure each phone. For each phone that you are configuring, obtain the following:

You can find this information in the user detail pages under the Users tab in the Phone Configuration section.

These images are based on using a Windows 7 64bit computer.

A. When you first open Jitsi after installation it will open setup wizard. DO NOT enter any data, click on Cancel to continue.

B. Click on Tools then Options

C.Click on Add

D. Choose SIP for Network then click on Advanced, DO NOT enter any user info

E. Enter User Name and SIP Password in Account page

F. In Connection page, enter the following information

G. On Encoding page, move up the following codec and uncheck all the other codec

H. Click Next, then click on Sign In. Jitsi should now beregistered and ready for use.

See our top business VoIP phone recommendations for 2017

Here is the original post:

Jitsi softphone for Windows OnSIP Support

Don’t blame online anonymity for dark web drug deals. – Slate Magazine (blog)

MDMA, aka ecstasy, aka molly, is popular on dark web drug marketplaces.

Noel Celis/AFP/Getty Images

Last Thursday, the Justice Department announced that it had worked with European authorities to shutter two of the largest destinations on the dark web to buy and sell illegal drugs, AlphaBay and Hansa.

The shutdown followed reports from earlier in the month that AlphaBay, the larger of the two, had mysteriously stopped working, causing users to flock to Hansa. But it turns out that Hansa had been taken over by the Dutch national police, who were collecting information on people using the site to traffic drugs.

European and American law enforcement collaborated to quietly arrest AlphaBays alleged founder Alexandre Cazes in Thailand on July 5. The 25-year-old Cazes later committed suicide in a Thai jail, according to the New York Times.

These dark web drug marketplaces are accessed using a service called Tor, which allows users to browse the internet anonymously. With Tor, you can circumvent law enforcement surveillance as well as internet censorship filters, which are often installed by governments or companies to restrict where people go online. Tor also allows for the creation of anonymously hosted websites or servers that can only be accessed via the Tor Browser. AlphaBay and Hansa were both hosted anonymously on Tor.

Though AlphaBay, Hansa, and, most famously, Silk Road depended on Tor to run their illegal operations, the Tor Project, the nonprofit that maintains the anonymous browser and hosting service, says that only 2 percent of Tor traffic has to do with anonymously hosted websites. The vast majority of Tor traffic is used for browsing the web anonymously. More than 1.5 million people use Tor every day, according to a spokesperson.

The U.S. government has a rather complicated relationship with Tor. On the one hand, documents revealed by Edward Snowden revealed how the National Security Agency had been trying to break Tor for years, searching for security vulnerabilities in browsers that would allow law enforcement to crack the online anonymity service. The Department of Defense has also invested in trying to crack Tor. During the 2016 trial of one of the administrators of Silk Road 2.0, another shuttered dark web drug-trafficking site, it was revealed that DoD hired researchers from Carnegie Mellon University to try to break Tors encryption in 2014.

Yet Tor also wouldnt exist without the U.S. governmentit was originally built as a project out of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. The State Department continues to fund Tor (at least someone has told Rex Tillerson about it, presumably) because internet users around the world rely on the anonymity tool to access information and communicate safely online, particularly in countries where the internet is heavily monitored or censored by the government, like in China with its national firewall, or in Thailand, where its illegal to criticize the royal family online.

Cazes, the AlphaBay ring leader, was caught thanks to investigative work, not a break in Tors encryption. Cazes had sent password recovery emails to his email address, which investigators used to find his LinkedIn profile and other identifiers. (And no, the FBI did not dig up an email from Cazes asking to join his professional network on LinkedIn. According to The Verge, Cazes used the same address on a French technology troubleshooting website, which listed his full name, leading investigators to find a LinkedIn profile where he boasted cryptography and web hosting skills, as well as involvement in a drug front.)

And thats good news for the vast majority of Tor users who arent interested in scoring molly. In 2015, a report from the U.N. declared that anonymity tools provide the privacy and security necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age."

Anonymity tools, like so many technologies, have both good and bad applications. And in the same way cellphones arent evil just because some people use them to make drug deals, its important to not malign anonymity tools just because some people use them to sell drugs, too. If the U.S. government is ever successful in finding a way to disable Tors encryption to find criminals, it could put hundreds of thousands of people who depend on Tor at risk, too.

View original post here:

Don't blame online anonymity for dark web drug deals. - Slate Magazine (blog)

Buy/Sell with Cryptocurrency

I believe the project will go beyond the sky! Now Bitcoin and maybe other cryptocurrency will have more users and holders through Coineasybuy . I enjoyed the store setup and completed the process within 5 minute. Great views and Escrow system for buyers and holders.Let the sales begin!

Aliexpress Seller-Mark Hong Vendor

I think this is a great kind of Cryptocurrency buying and selling community . Great system and setting . I hope to not only meet great sellers but also grow my business by reselling .

Bitcoin Enthusiast- David Wang Bitcoin User

I have always wanted to buy products from international sellers , but Banking regulations and Credit/debit card payment limitations would not just allow me. Now i am able to buy products even on wholesale and ship to my country with ease and making all payments in Bitcoin. Great!

Nigeria Reseller-Joseph Ekpen Buyer

This is what we have been waiting for. The Ability to sell with confidence and without limitation to buyers payment, Products, and ease of selling . CoinEasybuy will make a great impact in my business and double my sales from what i get from credit card payments. I am Glad!

Ebay Seller Alix James Vendor

Read the original here:

Buy/Sell with Cryptocurrency

Wall Street stunned over AMD’s cryptocurrency mining demand – CNBC

Investors are mesmerized with AMD's impressive second quarter as cryptocurrency mining demand drove the company's financial results above Wall Street's expectations.

The chipmaker reported better-than-expected second-quarter earnings and guidance Tuesday. Its shares surged more than 10 percent in after-hours trading following the report and were up more than 9 percent in early regular trading Wednesday.

"AMD turned in a solid beat to our and consensus estimates as the company's new Ryzen desktop CPU ramped into production and GPU demand outstripped supply," Stifel analyst Kevin Cassidy wrote in a note to clients Wednesday. "While management wasn't specific on how much, the GPU revenue upside was driven by cryptocurrency applications."

AMD shares have rallied 102 percent through Tuesday in the previous 12 months compared with the S&P 500's 14 percent return. That performance ranks No. 4 in the entire S&P 500, according to FactSet.

Cryptocurrency miners use graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia to "mine" new coins, which can then be sold or held for future appreciation. AMD traditionally has a better reputation for mining cryptocurrencies.

The ethereum cryptocurrency is up more than 2,400 percent year to date through Wednesday, while bitcoin is up about 160 percent this year, according to data from industry website CoinDesk.

In June, AMD shares jumped after the company told CNBC that the dramatic rise in digital currency prices has driven demand for its graphics cards. At the time, major computer hardware retailers had sold out of AMD's recently launched RX 570 and RX 580 models.

Digital currency mining was the key topic during AMD's earnings conference call with Wall Street on Tuesday evening. Analysts asked company management three times for clarification on the magnitude and sustainability of cryptocurrency mining demand.

One analyst noted the company is working to mitigate future downside risk and is not incorporating continued digital currency mining outperformance in its guidance.

"Crypto mining helped stimulate demand for AMD GPUs in Q2, which we think could translate to a risk should cryptocurrency values decline, AMD is working to manage the crypto risk by targeting supply to the core GPU gaming market, and working with some of its AIB [add in board] partners to offer specific feature sets to segment the market between gaming & mining," Jefferies analyst Mark Lipacis wrote Wednesday. "AMD is not including upside from mining in its outlook."

Lipacis reiterated his buy rating on the company and raised his price target to $19 from $16, representing 35 percent upside from Tuesday's close.

To be sure, some analysts are still skeptical about AMD after its big run.

"We were surprised at the aftermarket reaction for the stock," Morgan Stanley analyst Joseph Moore wrote Wednesday. "We continue to be somewhat cynical on the long-term intrinsic value of the stock, despite being excited about Zen and maintaining numbers that are above the Street. As street numbers start to catch up, absolute valuation levels are going to matter more."

Moore reiterated his equal weight rating and $11 price target for AMD shares.

CNBC's Michael Bloom contributed to this story.

Follow this link:

Wall Street stunned over AMD's cryptocurrency mining demand - CNBC

AMD: Cryptocurrency mining won’t be a ‘long-term growth driver’ (AMD) – Business Insider

Reuters/Arnd Wiegmann

AMD released itsquarterly earnings after the bell Tuesday and the stock took off.

A beat on earnings and revenue, coupled with a higher than expected forecast for the rest of the year, sent AMD's stock up about 8%.

In the earnings call following the company's release, Lisa Su, CEO of AMD, said something surprising.

"Relative to cryptocurrency, we have seen some elevated demand," 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 forward."

Su said that despite a boost in graphics processing unit sales due to increased demand from cryptocurrency miners, the company wouldn't focus on the exploding market.

Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and Ethereum have grown by headline-setting margins this year. Miners are those who lend their often specially-built computers to the cryptocurrency networks to help with complex computing required to verify payments on the platforms. Miners have been buying up lots of GPUs recently in an attempt to make their computers faster and grab a larger portion of the growing cryptocurrencies.

"If you look at GPUs across the world, the inventory in the channel is actually quite lean. And so we're working on replenishing that inventory," Su said. "Our priority, though, really is on our core market, which is the gaming market."

Nvidia, AMD's biggest competitor, is taking the opposite approach. The company is developing a mining specific chip that directly addresses the growing market. A product page for an unreleased Nvidia-based card says a mining-specific chip can increase the hash rate by 36% compared to other general purpose cards.

Cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile, with hundred dollar moves in the price of Bitcoin the norm, rather than the exception. The currencies have generally been increasing in value but the volatility could greatly affect demand for GPUs as interest wanes with declines prices.

Su addressed this concern, saying that AMD is "doing quite a bit to make sure that [it] protects against any downside as it relates to cryptocurrency," which could also be a reason AMD isn't developing a mining specific card. "We're ensuring that we're not over-calling the demand," Su added.

AMD is up 34.66% this year.

Markets Insider

Read this article:

AMD: Cryptocurrency mining won't be a 'long-term growth driver' (AMD) - Business Insider

Cryptocurrency exchanges could be subject to SEC regulation, too – FT Alphaville (registration)


FT Alphaville (registration)
Cryptocurrency exchanges could be subject to SEC regulation, too
FT Alphaville (registration)
You've probably heard the news about DAO tokens by now: The SEC says they should be regulated securities, and will probably end up regulating other digital coins, too. (At question is whether each digital coin passes the SEC's Howey test, which we ...
What's Next for Cryptocurrencies After Regulators Weigh InBloomberg
The SEC has finally weighed in on the crypto-token frenzy, and nobody's going to jailyetQuartz
SEC Report Finds Cryptocurrency Markets Trade To Federal Securities LawsInternational Business Times
ZDNet -CoinDesk -Finance Magnates
all 79 news articles »

View post:

Cryptocurrency exchanges could be subject to SEC regulation, too - FT Alphaville (registration)

US cryptocurrency crackdown could boost capital raising in Europe – Financial News (subscription)


Financial News (subscription)
US cryptocurrency crackdown could boost capital raising in Europe
Financial News (subscription)
European capital raisings in cryptocurrencies could surge after the US financial watchdog said it would crack down on the unregulated practice, dubbed by some as 'the Wild West'. The US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a report yesterday that ...

More here:

US cryptocurrency crackdown could boost capital raising in Europe - Financial News (subscription)

How Secure is Your Cryptocurrency Portfolio? – Finance Magnates

Many investors and cryptocurrency users consider Bitcoin, and other digital assets, the future of finance. But as they become increasingly popular, they are more likely to be targeted by cybercriminals.

There are many reasons why these virtual currencies have gained acceptance in the trading and financial industries. Most importantly, there is no need for third-party intermediaries. Blockchain, the technology underpinning the system, enables users to send and receive funds instantly without the intervention of a middleman.

No government or central bank controls cryptocurrencies, as they are totally decentralized. Despite this, several governments around the world, most notably Japan, have recognized Bitcoin as a legal method of payment. Russia banned Bitcoin in 2014, but the country now seems to be reconsidering its position on regulation, according to Alexey Moiseev, the Deputy Finance Minister of the Russian Federation.

Haim Toledano, a specialist on the capital market and decentralization technologies explains that the lack of regulation and the current uncertain legal status of cryptocurrencies presents a golden opportunity for cybercriminals. Numerous authorities are aiming to regulate the use of Bitcoin, Ethereum and other digital currencies and develop legal frameworks to protect users. In the meantime, however, cybercriminals continue to exploit the unwary.

According to Tyler Moore, Assistant Professor of Cyber Security at the University of Tulsas Tandy School of Computer Science, it is difficult to protect Bitcoin owners from hackers: I am sceptical theres going to be any technological silver bullet thats going to solve security breach problems. No technology, cryptocurrency, or financial mechanism can be made safe from hacks.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security funded a study conducted by Moore, showing that between 2009 and March 2015, 33% of operational Bitcoin exchanges were hacked. There are several ways to protect your cryptocurrency accounts from cybercriminals. Haim Toledano recommends the best steps to take

Taking these steps will protect you from cyberattacks to a certain extent, but serious cryptocurrency traders should stay up to date with emerging threats by regularly visiting specialist online forums.

Its impossible to guarantee total protection of your digital assets, but this shouldnt deter you from entering the exciting world of cryptocurrency trading. Just make sure to take the necessary precautions to safeguard your portfolio.

The rest is here:

How Secure is Your Cryptocurrency Portfolio? - Finance Magnates

7 Cryptocurrency Predictions From the Experts – Fortune

Fortune convened some top cryptocurrency entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, bankers, and others to chat about the future of digital money at Fortunes Brainstorm Tech conference in Aspen, Colo. last week. A select group met at the Aspen Institute for a breakfast roundtable discussion on Wednesday morning.

Headliners on the panel included Balaji Srinivasan , CEO and cofounder of 21.co, a cryptocurrency startup that has raised more in traditional VC funding than almost other one. Another was Peter Smith, CEO and cofounder of Blockchain, a U.K.-based cryptocurrency wallet company that recently raised $40 million from GV , the venture capital arm of Alphabet , parent company of Google ( goog ) . And Kathleen Breitman, CEO and cofounder of Tezos, a blockchain startup that this year raised more than $200 million in an initial coin offering, or ICO, and which counts celeb investor Tim Draper among its backers.

The crew of experts weighed in on everything from the longevity of Bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency and blockchain, or cryptographically secured public ledger, to the latest trend of hosting so-called token sales to fund projects, especially on Ethereum , a rival blockchain to Bitcoins, to the future of a decentralized web. Here are some of the predictions we heard.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.

Most people who are enthusiastic about cryptocurrency appear to agree that Bitcoin and its newer rival Ethereum have staying power, though they may be more bullish on one versus the other. "In terms of 5 to 10 years, Bitcoin and Ether will be around I bet," Balaji Srinivasan told the room of more than 70 people.

Peter Smith said his company, Blockchain, which was early to Bitcoin, has only just started to warm up to newcomer Ethereum. In contrast, Mike Cagney, CEO and cofounder of SoFi, a personal finance company, said during a separate session on the main stage that he was hotter on the latter technology .

Bitcoin "has some purpose but its application for commercial transaction is limited right now," Cagney said. "The blockchain and Ethereum, on the other hand, have absolutely fascinating infrastructure applications, he continued, mentioning the possibility to overhaul title insurance, which involves policies related to real estate, as one example.

Bitcoin and Ethereum may have stolen the show at this point, but the innovation wont end there. Expect more winners on the horizon.

Kathleen Breitman is hopeful that Tezos, her own blockchain bet, will fill a niche that solves problems with extant blockchains. In particular, she and her projects developers are designing Tezos to automatically push software updates out to the network, thus, in theory, avoiding the divisive feuding over upgrades that has wracked systems like Bitcoin over the past few years.

No one can say how many tokens and coins and blockchain protocols will eventually win out, but the experts seem to think theres room for a multitude. "Its likely that another one or two dominant ones we havent seen yet in the market," Smith projected. "Another really dominant coin could come out this year or next year.

For the time being, token sales might seem like a fantastic way to raise a lot of money quickly and with few questions asked. Will this lead to riches for some? Undoubtedlyindeed, it already has. And rip-offs for others? Almost certainly.

Smith said he presumes that market manipulation and insider dealing is rampant among purveyors of initial coin offerings. Were cautious about it in the short term, Smith said of his company. But you have to temper that with the idea that every new technology is going to be like that in the beginning.

Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple and a former executive at Yahoo , voiced his less forgiving concerns about the sector on a separate panel. Heavily regulated markets are typically heavily regulated for a reason, he said. Frauds are happening, people are going to jail.

The days of making a pilgrimage to the homes of the holders of purse strings are coming to an end. In a world where anyone can participate as an investor online, physical location matters much less.

It used to be you had to come to Silicon Valley, walk up Sand Hill Road, network with individuals, Srinivasan said about entrepreneurs seeking funding, often strolling up a strip to the west of Palo Alto that long has been associated with venture capital firms. ICOs change all that.

Projects are already getting funded this Kickstarter-like new way. Breitman said she that when she set up Tezos token sale, she aimed to get as many people who wanted to participate in the ecosystem to contribute. The company raised more than $200 million to date and, according to her, more than 30,000 Tezos wallets have been opened.

Elena Kvochko, chief information officer of the security division at Barclays, said that her bank has had talks with regulators about Bitcoin, blockchains, and their ilk. The rule-sticklers appear to be open to the idea as long as know your customer laws are obeyed, although its still early days.

Meanwhile, as governments settle on sets of rules of the road, countries like Switzerland, Singapore, and Estonia are jostling to develop frameworks that easily accommodate the new technology, Srinivasan said. Theyre seeking to displace geographic incumbents and become hubs for a new wave of business financing. If youre a U.S. person or business, you have a good deal to be concerned about, Smith said.

Breitman added that until the rules are agreed upon, its best to be transparent about what one is doing.

As cryptocurrency prices fluctuate wildly, speculators have been having a field day. However, theres reason to believe the markets will become more stable, as Bitcoin gradually has over the past couple of years (despite its still big price swings), Smith said.

In order for these computer coins to catch on big-time, they need a use-case that beats traditional money. Ideally, this ought to be better than merely buying drugs, as Jeff John Roberts, Fortune reporter and the sessions moderator, noted.

Srinivasan proposed one possible scenario. Imagine that all your waking hours are spent in the Matrix, he said, referring to a virtual reality in which everyone is enmeshed in the future. As people from all over the world meet and interact, they will need a medium of exchange. To transact, you cant just hand over a dollar bill, Srinivasan said. You need an international currency for that.

It might take a while but theres going to be more of a need to transact across borders than there is today, he said.

Whenever a consumer swipes or dips a credit card, payment processors charge a fee.

Nicko van Someren, chief technology officer of the Linux Foundation, pointed out that the fee companies like Visa or Mastercard charge exceeds the cost to clear or settle transactions. These businesses can potentially process transactions quicker and cheaper, he contended.

One potential outcome of the adoption of alternate systems, like Bitcoin, is to provide companies with the impetus to improve their services. Bitcoin is good because it will make banks move toward the real cost of handling these transactions, van Someren said. (By extension, in Ethereum's case, one could imagine upstart companies built on it forcing giants like Amazon , Facebook , or Dropbox to reconsider or improve their respective offerings.)

Smith, meanwhile, was less optimistic about incumbents ability to adapt to such change. I dont think be lot of room for banks to simply adjust their price models, he said.

Link:

7 Cryptocurrency Predictions From the Experts - Fortune

Feds: Jobless Montco man is no bit player in $50M bitcoin theft – Philly.com

Depending on whom you believe, Ted Price of Hatfield is either one of the most audacious cybercriminals to hit the internet in almost a decade or a drug-addled fabulist with delusions of grandeur.

Federal investigators and the unemployed 30-year-old himself say he pulled off one of the largest bitcoin thefts in the short history of the supposedly fraud-proof virtual currency, stealing the equivalent of nearly $50 million.

He also claimed, during a rambling confessionto Homeland Security investigators July 12, to have developed hacking exploits for use by foreign governments and to have plotted his escape with the use of a fake passport and a private jet.

But his lawyer and family contend that the jet-setting expert hacker described in the story Price spun for investigators bears no resemblance to the man they know a jobless addict who they say still relies on his parents for gas money and who was high on oxycodone and other opioids at the time of those damning admissions.

On Thursday,both sides will ask a federal judge to weigh in on the likelihood that Prices claims are true in a hearingin what could become one of the regions most significant cybercrime prosecutions in years one that already has drawn interest from cybersecurity experts.

If this guy actually did what he said he did, thats breathtaking, said Edward McAndrew, a former federal cybercrimes prosecutor who now helps to lead Ballard Spahrs privacy and data security group. If he could actually pick the bitcoin wallets of this many people, that really calls into question the security of the system.

Yet there is reason for doubt, his lawyer Catherine C. Henry said at a hearing in federal court in Philadelphia last week chiefly, that the man who contends he has access to currency worth millions and a private jet to aid his escape initially came to the attention of authorities as a suspect in a string of petty thefts.

An Inquirer and Daily News review of Prices history in various online forums for bitcoin enthusiasts and hackers reveals that his screen name, cited in court filings, had relatively little activity in those worlds prior to this spring. It is possible, however, that he used other online monikers in the past.

If he is a millionaire and has a private jet, then of course hes a flight risk, Henry said in court last week while arguing for her clients release. But if thats made up and if, on the other hand, he has no income, lives with his parents, and has a 7-year-old child, then these are just grandiose statements.

Police in Northampton Township, Bucks County,began probing Prices background earlier this month after the parents of an ex-girlfriend accused him of stealing two laptops and a gold necklace from their home.

Officers later recovered the missing items from various resale shops where Price had sold them, according to the arrest affidavit filed in his case. His ex-girlfriend discovered the evidence of his alleged cybercrimes including 105 printed pages listingstrings of alphanumeric code later identified as bitcoin keys in two laptop bags she retrieved from Prices family condo when she went to confront him, the affidavit said.

Authorities concede that theyre not yet sure whether Price has the ability to access the bitcoins he claims to have stolen.

Although they initially charged him July 13 with one federal count tied to his alleged bitcoin thefts, they later withdrew the charge and refiled the case based on charges tied to dozens of stolen credit card numbers also found in Prices laptop bag that he said hed bought from hackers on the dark web.

Investigators say theyve been unable to verify Prices story in other ways, including locating the fake passport Price claimed he obtained to flee the country under the name of Jeremy Renner, an actor he says he admired after seeing him in the 2012 Marvel movie The Avengers.

And yet, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Bonney, the investigation continues and additional charges could be added by the time Prices case goes before a grand jury.

Most people dont carry around hundreds of pages of bitcoin keys with them, she said at court hearing July 19.

Bitcoin, a decentralized, virtual currency existing entirely on the internet, quickly drew adherents after its debut in 2009 because it enables anonymous transactions untethered to third-party banks.

The system relies on what experts have described as a fraud-proof public ledger, known as a blockchain, that records every confirmed bitcoin transaction and provides a foolproof way to track currency assigned to the bitcoin wallets ofusers.

A users accesses his or herbitcoin with two strings of complex alphanumeric codes a public key, similar to a bank account number, and a private key, akin to a password or signature that allows the money to be spent or exchanged to a physical form of currency. At the current exchange rate, onebitcoin is worth about $2,600.

But the same qualities that make bitcoin attractive to users have made it a prime target for scammers. Unlike major banks or credit cards, nearly all of which offer some form of fraud protection, bitcoin transactions are irreversible. And although victims of theft might be able to track their stolen funds through the public ledger of the blockchain, the anonymity built into the system makes it nearly impossible to identify the thief.

Price, according to court filings, told investigators earlier this month that he developed a malware program that would surreptitiously divert bitcoins into his own wallet by disrupting the transactions of other users. With the program substituting his own bitcoin keys for those on either end of an exchange, he managed to funnelbetween $40 million and $50 million into bitcoin wallets under his control, he said.

Because the bitcoin wallet address [was] a legitimate address, the user[did] not realize that bitcoin transaction [was] being diverted into a wallet other thantheirs, wrote Emily J. Evans, a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations, in the affidavit drafted for Prices arrest.

Yet now,two weeks after investigators took Priceinto custody, even hisfamily seemsuncertain what to believe. Most of his close relatives either did not respond or declined to respond to requests for comment.

But during a brief conversation outside the condo where he lived with his son, Prices father, Samuel Price Sr., appeared conflicted.

Its all hearsay, he said when approached by a reporter. The truth will all come out in open court.

Then the elder Price paused.

Did he do what they said, as far as those bitcoins? Probably, he said. But I guess theyre still trying to figure it all out.

Published: July 26, 2017 12:36 PM EDT | Updated: July 26, 2017 12:39 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read more here:

Feds: Jobless Montco man is no bit player in $50M bitcoin theft - Philly.com