Select Page ::

Much Ado About Nothing? Cyber Command and the NSA – War on the Rocks

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Last week, word began to spread that the Trump administration was considering granting new powers to U.S. Cyber Command. Lolita Baldor of the Associated Press had the scoop, discussing two related but separate steps under consideration: first, to elevate U.S. Cyber Command to the status of a unified command and second, to break the current dual-hat arrangement with the National Security Agency (NSA), whereby the commander of U.S. Cyber Command is the same individual as the director of the NSA.

It is worth noting, however, four things: First, these two steps (elevation and separation) have been under consideration for years. Second, there were good reasons at the time why the Obama administration didnt act on them. Third, elevation and separation should, in theory, operationally empower U.S. Cyber Command, but in practice Cyber Command may ironically find itself with less capability to offer. And finally, Cyber Command has already quietly amassed non-operational power and authority within the Department of Defense, making it one of the most independent commands, second only to the U.S. Special Operations Command. As such, while this weekends news is a good sign of the continued maturation of Cyber Command (and the acknowledgment of that maturation by the White House), theres less here than meets the eye.

Lets review Cyber Commands origins and its assigned missions before tackling the news. (Please accept my apologies in advance for some acronym salad.) For the short-story long, see chapter 8 of Playing to the Edge by Michael Hayden and the early parts of Jay Healeys Fierce Domain. Long-story short, the NSA had been the nations leading signals intelligence agency for decades. But after 9/11, as new opportunities emerged to create effects against adversaries during declared hostilities, Pentagon leadership became uncomfortable with the notion that the intelligence missions of collection and analysis would be conducted by the same organization that would disrupt or degrade, even destroy, targets through cyber-attacks during an armed conflict. In 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was given responsibility for cyberspace, and two little-known subordinate organizations emerged to manage it: Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations (JTF-GNO) would handle guarding the Defense Departments networks while Joint Functional Component Command-Network Warfare (JFCC-NW) would be responsible for missions wed think of as offense. Because there was so much overlap between the NSA and the emerging JFCC-NW, the Department of Defense created the dual-hat by making the NSA director (then Hayden) the commander of JFCC-NW. As the threats to the Department of Defense in cyberspace increased throughout the 2000s, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates consolidated JTF-GNO and JFCC-NW under a new U.S. Cyber Command in 2010, but it was still subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command and still dual-hatted with the NSA director. Thats more or less where we find ourselves today.

Since then, U.S. Cyber Command has been charged with three missions: defend the Defense Departments networks and systems, provide offensive support to other commands in the event of a contingency, and defend the nation from a cyber-attack of significant consequence (less than two percent of incidents would qualify as significant).

Advocates of more autonomy and authority for U.S. Cyber Command have often bemoaned its subordinate status to U.S. Strategic Command. The theory is that having to work through Strategic Command slows down operational approval, coordination, or whatever else needs to happen. Based on my experience in the Cyber Policy office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I am of the view that a stove-piped Joint Staff had more to do with delays and miscommunication than anything else; nor could I ever find a function Cyber Command might be asked to execute that could only be performed by a full, unified command (like Strategic Command) but not by a sub-unified command (like Cyber Command). We looked at this several times during the last administration: If the secretary of defense wanted the sub-unified command to execute, they could and would. It wasnt a problem, so elevating the command wasnt necessary. So, while I dont think there are any big wins to be had by the recent news about the Trump administration wanting to elevate Cyber Command, I dont think it hurts to do it either. And it might not ultimately be up to the White House: The 2017 NDAA requires the administration to elevate Cyber Command.

Breaking the dual-hatted relationship with the NSA is more complicated. There are very good reasons why JFCC-NW was born with the NSA as its commander, as there is a lot of overlap between the organizations. This overlap is intuitive to those whove worked in the business, but hard to explain in brief here. Ill just quote Hayden on this point: [I]n the cyber domain the technical and operational aspects of defense, espionage, and cyberattack are frankly indistinguishable they are all the same thing. Its obviously more complicated than this, but at a high level, I think this was the rationale.

There were studies undertaken about the implications of breaking the dual-hat before the Snowden affair, but his disclosures forced policymakers to confront the issue head-on. At that time, it was thought that breaking the dual-hat could improve perceptions about privacy and civil liberties at the NSA, but in December 2013 the Obama administration decided to maintain the arrangement. Senior leaders felt it was too soon to separate Cyber Command. Its readiness and resources were growing but insufficient, and it was still too reliant on NSA talent and services for its missions.

Working with the two organizations, I found that the relationship between the two was akin to a mix between hostage-taking and Stockholm syndrome except each organization kept mixing up which was the hostage and which was the hostage-taker. One day, U.S. Cyber Command would demand NSA support due to the latters responsibility as a combat support agency. The next day, the command would cave and say that NSA had other, more important priorities. And NSA too would resist a request from Cyber Command, then embrace it, and then fight it. The overlap and dependence was that tight.

For that reason, among others, I understand the argument about needing to separate Cyber Command from NSA so that the former can pursue its missions (especially to defend the nation and to support other commands) with greater independence from signals intelligence. But theres a risk here that would be dangerous to miss: When Cyber Command needs NSA support, the fact that its the same person in charge of both organization can break what might otherwise be a log-jam. Splitting the dual-hat could result in the NSA isolating itself and refocusing on its own core missions (the collection of signals intelligence and providing information assurance) while minimizing its support to Cyber Command.

Just because there are risks does not mean the Trump administration should leave the current arrangement in place. The question is not whether, but when and how, to break the dual-hat. One priority for the White House and Secretary Mattis will be to have a clear understanding with the new NSA director (who may well be a civilian for the first time) about how he or she sees the relationship with Cyber Command, and then how the administration monitors the relationship to ensure the NSA doesnt abandon Cyber Command outright.

The selection of who will next lead Cyber Command will also be a priority. Someone like the current commander of Army Cyber Command, Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, is an ideal candidate: He has years of experience in the cyber effects business, time in the Pentagon and the field, and he understands the roles of civilians, fellow military officers, and senior political types. Another name thats been floated is Lt. Gen. William Mayville, currently the Director of the Joint Staff. His time as the Joint Staffs chief information officer and with Joint Special Operations Command would make him a strong leader for Cyber Command as well.

The good news for the future of the U.S. militarys cyber operations is that, regardless of whether or not Cyber Command is elevated as a unified command or separated from the NSA, Congress has quietly been empowering Cyber Command with greater authorities and independence through legislation. My colleague Charley Snyder and I assessed all the additional powers conferred in the 2017 NDAA over at Lawfare, but Id like to single out the authority related to requirements: Being able to set its own requirements for the conduct of cyber operations, as well as validating the requirements of other defense components, matters more than this bland bureaucratic language might suggest. With the independent acquisition authority Congress gave it in a previous NDAA, Cyber Command can now accelerate acquisition and procurement to keep up with new requirements without the usual deliberations chaired by the Joint Staff. Special Operations Command is the only other military outfit with that kind of freedom, and it makes a big difference.

But the big question will be this: Regardless of these crucial authorities and any new command arrangements, what will Cyber Commands role be in protecting the country from threats like Russian information operations? Maybe its time we get away from using cyber as the description of what needs to be done, and instead think about what an Information Warfare Command would look like. How should the United States wage such a fight, and how should it protect itself? I am pleased the Trump administration is considering organizational changes to support a higher profile for cyber operations, but we really need answers to these bigger policy questions.

Michael Sulmeyer is the Director of the Cyber Security Project at the Harvard Kennedy Schools Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He also served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cyber Policy, from 2012-2015. Follow him on Twitter @SultanOfCyber.

Image:Airman 1st Class Christopher Maldonado/Shaw Air Force Base

Much Ado About Nothing? Cyber Command and the NSA - War on the Rocks

Defense in accused NSA leaker case opposes prosecutors proposed order of protection – The Augusta Chronicle

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

The attorneys for the Fort Gordon contractor accused of leaking national defense information have filed their own proposed order regarding how classified documents are handled in her espionage case.

Reality Leigh Winner, 25, has pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court to a single count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information.

While the federal prosecutors have proposed an order of protection that prohibits the defense from revealing any classified information, even if it had been included in published reports, Winners attorneys propose not treating any document as classified if it has been the subject of media reports. Violation of the final order of protection can result in sanctions and even criminal prosecution.

The case against Winner, which is tentatively set for trial the week of Oct. 23, is to proceed under the Classified Information Security Act, a law enacted to protect a defendants right to a fair trial while allowing the government to protect classified information on matters of national security.

The federal prosecutors contend it is the executive branch of government that determines what is a classified document.

In Winners case, the document suspected as being the one sent anonymously to the online news publication The Intercept was the subject of an June 5 article. It was an analysis of the Russian governments meddling in the presidential election. Since Winners arrest, the subject has been reported on extensively, especially in light of the investigations by the independent special counsel, and the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Winners defense attorneys also seek a provision in the order of protection that allows her to review the discovery material, confer with attorneys about it and to assist in her defense.

The defense team also wants the proposed order to allow defense experts with the prosecutors security clearance to review the discovery material without any pre-clearance by the prosecution.

U.S. Magistrate Court Judge Brian K. Epps will determine what the final order of protection will contain. The government, however, has the right to appeal, under the Classified Information Security Act.

Winner has had a top security clearance since serving for six years in the Air Force. In February, she began working for the National Security Agency contractor, Pluribus International Corp. at Fort Gordon.

She is accused of taking a classified document in May and mailing it to The Intercept.

Federal agents allegedly followed clues to Augusta and to Winner after an Intercept reporter showed an intelligence source the document to determine its authenticity.

Reach Sandy Hodson at (706) 823-3226 or sandy.hodson@augustachronicle.com.

Defense in accused NSA leaker case opposes prosecutors proposed order of protection - The Augusta Chronicle

Interactive Constitution: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment – Constitution Daily (blog)

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

As part of the National Constitution CentersInteractive Constitution project, leading scholars across the legal and philosophical spectrum find common ground on the Constitutions articles, amendments and provisions. In this essay, Brian C. KaltandDavid Pozen look at how the Twenty-Fifth Amendment seeks to answer questions raised by the original Constitutions treatment of presidential and vice-presidential vacancies and presidential disability.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment seeks to answer a series of questions raised by the original Constitutions treatment of presidential and vice-presidential vacancies and presidential disability.

First, what happens when a presidential vacancy arises? Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution states that in case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President. The line of succession from President to Vice President is clear, but what exactly devolves on the Vice President? Is it the office of President or just its powers and duties? When President William Henry Harrison died in 1841, Vice President John Tyler forcefully asserted that he had become President. Although Congress accepted this result, some disputed Tylers reading of the Presidential Succession Clause.

Second, what should happen when a vice-presidential vacancy arises? The original Constitution did not provide for filling such a vacancy. Prior to the adoption of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, one Vice President resigned, seven died in office, and eight took over for Presidents who died in office: all in all, the vice presidency was unoccupied more than 20 percent of the time. This was less of a problem when the office was held in low regard, which it mostly was until the mid-twentieth century. But as the vice presidency began to grow into its modern forma sort of deputy presidencyit became more worrisome for the office to be vacant. These worries were sharpened by Congresss design of the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, which places the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate immediately behind the Vice President in line for the presidency, even when they do not belong to the Presidents political party.

Third, what happens if the President becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office? Several Presidents suffered debilitating illnesses and injuries. For weeks and months at a time, the country was left without effective or accountable presidential leadership. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 provided for the Vice President to step in when the President had an inability to discharge [his] powers and duties, but it provided no decision-maker, no procedures, and no definition of inability. Nor did it make clear whether the Vice President would act as President only until the President recovered, or instead would become President for the duration of the term. No Vice President wanted to seem like a usurper. In practice, power was never transferred and presidential inner circles typically concealed the Presidents condition. This pattern came to be seen as increasingly irresponsible with the advent of nuclear weapons during the Cold War; the nation needed a fully functioning presidency at all times. In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sought to break the pattern by being more open about his health and by entering into an agreement with Vice President Richard Nixon that provided for Nixon to serve as Acting President in the event of presidential inability.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 brought renewed attention to these questions. Led by Senator Birch Bayh, Congress gave them focused consideration and, in July of 1965, sent the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the states for ratification. Less than two years later, the necessary thirty-eighth state legislature ratified it.

In response to the first question, regarding presidential vacancies, Section 1 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment formalizes the Tyler precedent. It confirms that when the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns, the Vice President becomes President. When President Nixon resigned in 1974, Vice President Gerald Ford became President under Section 1.

In response to the second question, regarding vice-presidential vacancies, Section 2 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment requires the President to nominate a replacement Vice President when that office becomes vacant, subject to confirmation by a majority of both the House and Senate. In 1973, Gerald Ford became Vice President through Section 2 after Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned. When Ford took over the presidency the following year, he promptly invoked Section 2 to nominate Nelson Rockefeller to fill the resulting vice-presidential vacancy.

In response to the third question, regarding presidential inability, Sections 3 and 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment establish two procedures for transferring authority to the Vice President as Acting President. Building on the Eisenhower-Nixon precedent, Section 3 allows the President to transfer authority temporarily, by submitting a written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. The President can reclaim those powers and duties later by submitting a second declaration to the contrary. President Ronald Reagan (once) and President George W. Bush (twice) transferred authority to their Vice Presidents under Section 3 for a matter of hours while they underwent planned surgeries.

Section 4 addresses the dramatic case of a President who may be unable to fulfill his constitutional role but who cannot or will not step aside. It provides both a decision-maker and a procedure. The initial deciding group is the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some other body that Congress may designate (though Congress has never done so). If this group declares a President unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If and when the President pronounces himself able, the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers. But if it does, the Vice President keeps control while Congress quickly meets and makes a decision. The voting rule in these contested cases favors the President; the Vice President continues acting as President only if two-thirds majorities of both chambers agree that the President is unable to serve.

Section 3 and (especially) Section 4 are long and complicated by constitutional standards. Nevertheless, they leave a number of issues unsettledmost significantly, what counts as presidential inability. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegate John Dickinson asked, What is the extent of the term disability in the proposed presidential succession clause, and who is to be the judge of it? No response is recorded. By giving the President, Vice President, and Congress important and distinct roles, the Framers of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment went a long way toward answering the second part of Dickinsons question, rather than try to resolve the first part.

Brian C. Kalt is Professor of Law and The Harold Norris Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University College Of Law. David Pozen is Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.

For further discussion between Kaltand Pozenon the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, read the following Matters Of Debate:

The Unusual, Imperfect, Excellent Twenty-Fifth Amendment By Brian C. Kalt

The Deceptively Clear Twenty-Fifth Amendment By David Pozen

Filed Under: 25th Amendment

Read this article:

Interactive Constitution: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog)

Editorial, 7/21: Sessions wrong to reinstate forfeiture practice – Lincoln Journal Star

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. The same can no longer be said about the Justice Department.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive Wednesday reinstating the controversial practice of adoptive forfeiture, expanding the ability of law enforcement to take possession of assets belonging to suspects even if they havent been or wont be charged with a crime under civil law and later profit from the assets so long as the low bar of probable cause is met.

This is why adoptive forfeiture is a bad deal for Americans, and more than two dozen states restricted the process in recent years. In few places will Sessions change be felt more acutely than Nebraska, a leader in forfeiture reform.

Last year, the Legislature passed a laudable measure that banned permanent asset seizures by law enforcement until a suspect was convicted of a crime and limited when the less-restrictive civil forfeiture process could be used.

Now, its all but moot, as local law enforcement can skirt more restrictive state laws in favor of the far more permissive federal standards.

Although Sessions directive includes modest safeguards against abuse most notably, requiring more detail from law enforcement on probable cause and notifying people of their rights his agency took a net step backward. His document doesnt address the major concerns about the practice of forfeiture:

* The Constitution requires the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty in court. By requiring those whose assets are seized to sue for their return, the courts are essentially holding those people as guilty until being proved innocent.

* Equitable sharing, which was suspended along with adoptive forfeiture at the federal level in 2015, allows law enforcement agencies to keep up to 80 percent of proceeds while sharing at least 20 percent with federal authorities. This federal policy encourages local law enforcement to seize assets and police for profit.

* By allowing law enforcement agencies to circumvent state laws and instead operate under the far less onerous federal guidelines, the Justice Department has overruled the local control Republicans vociferously defend.

This sudden pivot in favor of restoring the adoptive forfeiture runs counter to the platform adopted at last summers Republican National Convention, which accurately notes: When the rights of the innocent can be so easily violated, no ones rights are safe. We call on Congress and state legislatures to enact reforms to protect law-abiding citizens against abusive asset forfeiture tactics.

Seizing the ill-gotten gains of a person tried and convicted in court is wholly defensible for local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. But Sessions directive reopens a dangerous Pandoras box that disregards both the due process rights of Americans and self-rule of state governments.

View original post here:

Editorial, 7/21: Sessions wrong to reinstate forfeiture practice - Lincoln Journal Star

Girl with gun makes clear 2nd Amendment saves – Washington Times

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Liberals may simply try to wish away the crime but a 17-year-old girls brush with death, and subsequent use of a gun, shows without a doubt that the Second Amendment saves.

The story of Kimber Woods, who fired into the ground and scared away a home intruder, is one for the political books. Strangely, liberals are pretty silent on it, though.

Woods was alerted by her boyfriend of a possible burglar, called her dad to ask if she could use a gun, and when told yes, slid one under her pillow. When the burglar did indeed enter her home, Woods pulled out the firearm and pointing it right at his face, demanding he leave. For extra emphasis, she ran outside and fired a shot into the ground.

The burglar fled. Mission accomplished.

Nobody was even physically harmed.

This is how the Second Amendment works.

I know how to use the gun and it gave me a peace of mind that I had the upper hand and I was going to be safe, Woodstold Breitbart in an interview.

So why isnt Woods being lauded throughout the mainstream media as a hero? Why isnt she being mentioned by, say, left-leaning politicos on CNN as a solid example of why the Second Amendment is needed in modern times?

Because Woods doesnt fit the narrative of the gun-controlling left.

Woods experience demonstrates aptly why more guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans, not fewer, bring safety to citizens, particularly for women. Guns are equalizers. Theyre what give a 17-year-old girl the ability to stand down a threatening, perhaps brutal, home intruder, no matter his size, no matter his strength.

Firearms training among Americas youth as Woods underwent, from about the age of 6 or 7, she said is actually a proper lesson plan for parents to follow. The left will cover its ears and eyes at such a notion. But Woods story shows clearly: The constitutional right to carry is indeed a lifesaver for the innocent.

See original here:

Girl with gun makes clear 2nd Amendment saves - Washington Times

Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

By Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In August, 2016, two professors from the University of Austin, Texas, and an Associate Teaching Assistant Professor, sued the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, the President of the University of Texas, Austin, and the Members of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas at Austin.

A number of frivolous claims were offered in an attempt to stop the Texas statute allowing exercise of the Second Amendment on Campus from going into effect.

The claims included that the law is vague, the law violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The arguments were childish, irrational, emotional rants.

Here is an example:

48. The Texas statutes and university policies that prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their individual option to forbid handguns in their classrooms violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied in Texas through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These policies and procedures deprive Plaintiffs of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and others in their classrooms from handgun violence by compelling them as public employees to passively acquiesce in the presence of loaded weaponry in their place of public employment without the individual possession and use of such weaponry in public being well-regulated. This infringement lacks any important justification and is imposed without any substantial link between the objectives of the policies and the means chosen to achieve them.

Judge Lee Yeakel heard the claims, read the suit, and concluded that the plaintiffs had no standing because they had not suffered any harm.

From reporternews.com:

A federal judge has dismissed a long-shot lawsuit filed by three University of Texas at Austin professors seeking to overturn the state's 2015 campus carry law, which allows people to carry concealed handguns inside most public university buildings.

District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote in his decision that the professors Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore and Mia Carter couldn't present any concrete evidence to substantiate their fears that campus carry would have a chilling effect on free speech.

From the decision, at texasattorneygeneral.gov(pdf):

The court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established an injury-in-fact, nor that the alleged injury is traceable to any conduct of Defendants. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180-81. Accordingly, the court will dismiss this cause for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244,251 (5th Cir. 2015). (Because [appellants] have not alleged a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, we dismiss their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.)

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that UT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doc. No. 64) and Defendant Ken Paxton's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doe. No. 65) are GRANTED

The results of the lawsuit are were expected. The claims were frivolous to those who actually read them.

It took nearly a year for the court to reach that conclusion. Some Minnesota students attempted to duplicate the Texas protests. No serious incidents have been associated with the restoration of Second Amendment freedoms on Campus. Other than the Minnesota copy cat protests, protests related to Texas Campus Carry have withered away. 2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Here is the original post:

Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The First Amendment Protects the Right to Boycott Israel – ACLU (blog)

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Earlier this week, the ACLU sent a letter to members of Congress opposing the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The bill would amend existing law to prohibit people in the United States from supporting boycotts targeting Israel making it a felony to choose not to engage in commerce with companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Violations would be punishable by a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The bill is aimed at advocates of boycotts targeting Israel, most notably the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement a global campaign that seeks to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with international law. Specifically, the bill sponsors intend the act as a response to the U.N. Human Rights Councils 2016 resolution calling on companies to respect human rights, including in occupied Palestinian territories.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

In fact, the right to boycott is one of the brightest stars in our constitutional firmament. The American Revolution was founded on boycotts against British goods to protest excessive taxes. John Jay led a boycott against New York merchants who engaged in the slave trade. And the Montgomery bus boycott of 19551956 was a major turning point in the struggle for civil rights in the Jim Crow South. In the 1970s and 1980s, colleges and universities led a widespread campaign to boycott and divest from South Africa, in protest of apartheid. In 2015, football players at the University of Missouri went on strike until the school addressed acute racial tensions on campus. And North Carolinas law prohibiting transgender people from accessing restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identities sparked massive boycotts by businesses and individuals.

Boycotts are a form of collective action that allows ordinary people to make their voices heard. For precisely this reason, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to boycott. The courts landmark decision in NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. affirmed the constitutional right of NAACP activists to hold a mass economic boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi, to protest the communitys persistent racial inequality and segregation. In ringing language, the court held that the boycotters exercise of their rights to speech, assembly, and petition . . . to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

This is a proud constitutional legacy. Today, though, the right to boycott is under assault. Over the past several years, federal, state, and local legislators have introduced wave after wave of legislation seeking to stamp out boycotts and divestment campaigns aimed at Israel. One such law, passed earlier this year by Nassau County in New York, prohibits the county from doing business with people who support the BDS movement. As a result, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame could be banned from playing at the Nassau Coliseum in New York. Similar laws have been passed in Arizona and Kansas.

None of them comport with the First Amendment.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act introduced in Congress goes a step further, threatening severe civil and criminal punishment against individuals who refrain from doing business with Israel because of their political opposition to its governments actions. The bill amends two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, which prohibit certain boycotts sponsored by foreign governments.

The bill would expand the application of those laws in a number of ways. It would expand the laws to prohibit boycotts called for by international organizations, like the United Nations and the European Union; it would threaten sanctions against people who boycott businesses operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories; and it would prohibit even requests for information about companies business relationships with Israel and Israeli companies. This expansive language would likely chill a wide range of political activity in the United States directed at the Israeli government activity that is constitutionally protected, regardless whether members of Congress agree with it.

A number of the bills sponsors were apparently surprised by the ACLUs free speech concerns with the bill. A number of them have now expressed their intention to review the legislation with the ACLUs civil rights and civil liberties concerns in mind. We hope they do the right thing by backing away from any bill that violates our First Amendment rights.

See the original post:

The First Amendment Protects the Right to Boycott Israel - ACLU (blog)

Even in (religious liberty) victory, First Amendment advocates must … – Washington Examiner

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Underneath the myriad political stories dominating the news sucking up time and energy like traffic on a Los Angeles freeway, a culture war ripples like an earthquake fault line underneath our feet. Religious liberty, however unpretentious and boring it may appear to be, remains a pressing issue on the importance of societal well-being. Last week, there was another victory for schools associated with all faiths.

Joanne Fratello was the principal of St. Anthony School. As such, she led students in religious activities such as prayer, mass, and encouraging religious-based curriculum. The school eventually did not renew Fratello's contract when they determined she was not advancing the school's Catholic values.

So she sued. Her lawyer claimed the school was not allowed to hire a principal who would promote the Catholic faith at St. Anthony School.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the school, announced that a New York court recently ruled St. Anthony School and the Roman Archdiocese of New York "can choose a principal who shares their faith." Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, said, "The court saw right through this blatantly anti-Catholic lawsuit, agreeing with the Supreme Court that the church, not the state, should pick religious leaders."

It was clear in the opposing trial lawyer's arguments he was vehemently opposed to religious freedom. He "accused the Catholic Church of being "dangerous to society," the Russian Orthodox Church as "indoctrinating children with Stalinist communism," and the Supreme Court's unanimous decision as an aid to "potential jihadists.'" Such rhetoric is not only divisive, even for a lawyer, but more importantly has no place in a court of law when the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In the decision, which went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ignored the opposing counsel's illogical bluster and instead said there is historical precedent for this case when "a stammering Moses was chosen to lead the people, and a scrawny David to slay a giant." That a New York appellate court would cite centuries-old Jewish history for a 2017 religious liberty case should make any First Amendment fanatic's heart skip with glee even as it no doubt filled opposing counsel with disdain for religious history.

This aligns with a similar decision the Supreme Court unanimously decided five years ago, when the state tried to intervene with a Lutheran school about what kind of leaders the school could choose.

Even though religious liberty cases keep popping up in the court system nationwide, it's heartening to see (for people of all faith or no faith) that the First Amendment remains authoritative and secure.

That said, when cases like this, where a woman sues a religious school because she believes she was unlawfully fired because that school reserved the right to hire someone who promotes their religious values, reaches an appellate court, religious liberty advocates must remain vigilant.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator's Young Journalist Award.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

More here:

Even in (religious liberty) victory, First Amendment advocates must ... - Washington Examiner

Augmented reality wins big in 1st Amendment legal flap – Ars Technica

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

A judge on Thursday declared as unconstitutional a local Wisconsin ordinance mandating that the makers of augmented reality games get special use permits if their mobile apps were to be played in county parks. The lawthe nation's first of its kindwas challenged on First Amendment grounds amid concerns it amounted to a prior restraint of a game maker's speech. What's more, the law was seemingly impossible to comply with.

The federal lawsuit was brought by a Southern California company named Candy Lab. The maker of Texas Rope 'Eman augmented reality game with features like Pokemon Gosued Milwaukee County after it adopted an AR ordinance in February in the wake of the Pokemon Go craze. Because some of its parks were overrun by a deluge of players, the county began requiring AR makers to get a permit before their apps could be used in county parks.

The permitting process also demanded that developers perform the impossible: estimate crowd size, event dates, and the times when mobile gamers would be playing inside county parks. The permits, which cost as much as $1,000, also required that developers describe plans for garbage collection, bathroom use, on-site security, and medical services. Without meeting those requirements, augmented reality publishers would be in violation of the ordinance if they published games that included playtime in Milwaukee County parks.

US District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking Milwaukee County from enforcing the law until the outcome of a trial tentatively set for April. "Greater injury will be inflicted upon plaintiff by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of such relief," the judge ruled. (PDF)

The county did not immediately respond for comment.

In court papers, the county said (PDF) that augmented reality games like Texas Rope 'Em"werenot protected by the First Amendment:

Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video gamesmediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protectionTexas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters, and no dialogue. All it conveys is a random display of cards and a map. Absent the communicative features that invoke the First Amendment, Candy Lab has no First Amendment claim.

In Texas Rope 'Em, the county added, "The player simply views randomly generated cards and travels to locations to get more. That is not the type of speech that demands First Amendment safeguards."

Brian Wassom, Candy Lab's lawyer, said the judge's decision undercuts the county's argument.

"I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole," he said in a telephone interview. "It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Niantic, the developer of Pokemon Go, told Ars in a recent interview that it was working with Milwaukee County and other jurisdictions to alter game locations and to accommodate park hours.

Go here to read the rest:

Augmented reality wins big in 1st Amendment legal flap - Ars Technica

Here Is The NRA’s Latest Attack Against The First Amendment – The National Memo (blog)

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

The National Rifle Associations broadcast platform NRATV has launched its latest attack against freedom of the press, this time targetingTheWashington Post, calling the newspaper a fake news outlet and claiming it is where journalism dies.

On July 11, thePostpublished anarticlecalling an NRATVvideoabout political unrest in the U.S. dark. The article noted that the video condemned Democratic politicians, the media and activists as the catalysts for political upheaval in this country, with one glaring omission: firearms. According to the article, the video focused on political discussions around public safety during civil unrest, with less clear connections to Second Amendment rights.

On July 17, NRATV released a responsevideofeaturing NRATV host Grant Stinchfield, who called out thePostreporter by name and slammed him for tell[ing] us we cant have an opinion unless its about guns.

The video also accused thePostof spreading lies about those who disagree with their radical agenda and said the newspaper is pushing organized anarchy that is destroying our country. Stinchfield went on to claim, You people do more to damage our country with a keyboard than every NRA member combined has ever done with a firearm.

Less than one day after the videos release,The New York Times Max Fishertweetedthat the video is edging right up to the line of endorsing violence against journalists, while HuffPostcalledit disturbing.

Despite the mounting criticism, Stinchfield doubled down on his video during the noon edition of NRATVsStinchfieldon July 18, claiming the newspaper uses its keyboards as weapons of destruction:

GRANT STINCHFIELD: TheWashington Postis out of line. They claim to uphold the standards of journalism when, in fact, they use their keyboards as weapons of destruction as they try to tear apart the Trump administration in an effort not just to destroy him, but to destroy America, and it is wrong.

This video is just the latest in a growing number of attacks the NRA has launched against both the press and freedom of the press since Donald Trump won the Republican nomination for president and was ultimately elected. During anOctober 26, 2016, broadcast, Stinchfield characterized dissent against Trump as an assault against the Constitution. A month later, during aNovember 29broadcast, Stinchfield called mainstream media dishonest and downright dirty,suggesting that it is anti-patriotic to report critically on Trump and his transition team, and said that the media instead needs to get on board.

AfterThe New York Timesran anadvertisementduring this years Oscar awards about the importance of journalism, the NRA fired back with its own 75-secondadclaiming Americans have stopped looking toThe New York Timesfor the truth. And in April, the NRAannounceda series of messages against the newspaper, which the organization claims has gone on the offensive to take away your liberties.

Header image source.

See more here:

Here Is The NRA's Latest Attack Against The First Amendment - The National Memo (blog)

Why pro-life doctors want the First Amendment to protect their right to lie to patients – Mic

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

The First Amendment promises that, among other things, Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech but, in reality, there are always some legal restrictions on self-expression, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

One of the exceptions is for commercial speech, which is generally defined as speech intended for commerce and aimed at consumers or potential consumers. Its a legally tricky area of law in which the courts have determined the purpose of the speech and its audience determines whether outright lies or significant omissions are subject to First Amendment protections.

And its an area of law the anti-abortion movement seems determined to exploit in an effort to gain the right to mislead people who seek medical care from any health care provider opposed to abortion or birth control.

Whether the anti-abortion movement has a First Amendment right to lie to pregnant patients is the crux of a number of lawsuits in Illinois, consolidated by the courts, in which 20 crisis pregnancy centers are suing the state. They claim that their constitutional rights will be violated by a new rule that went into effect on Jan. 1. The rule requires that all medical professionals adhere by a standard of care that includes informing patients of all their medical options for a given diagnosis or situation, regardless of whether or not a provider is morally opposed to a given relevant option.

Felicia Morris-Bolar, center director of Planned Parenthood in the Bronx, N.Y., works in her office with a view from her window of the EMC Pregnancy Center signage.

Though broadly written, the law acts as a revision to Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, a decades-old state law that was passed following Roe v. Wade, in order to ensure that providers who were opposed to abortion for religious reasons were legally able to recuse themselves from performing the procedure. The new amendment still doesnt force anyone to perform a procedure to which they have religiously motivated objections, but it does require that they inform their patients about everything relevant to their care and conditions. In other words, it is now illegal for a reproductive health care provider to not tell a patient about the existence of contraception or abortion.

But crisis pregnancy centers are, essentially, health care centers though they dont function like many other medical providers. Still, they often advertise and present themselves as full-fledged medical facilities, even when they are mostly avenues through which anti-choice activists some of whom are licensed medical professionals can try to convince people facing unintended pregnancy to avoid abortion.

So now, some of these Illinois-based CPCs claim that the new amendment violates their First Amendment rights by requiring them to mention procedures which they oppose on religious grounds.

The new amendment wasnt, however, intended to target crisis pregnancy centers, according to Lorie Chaiten, director of the Reproductive Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. As Chaiten explained in an interview with Mic, the new amendment was designed to ensure that all patients in Illinois receive care that meets the standards to which any given medical specialty is held, regardless of the religion of the provider. Legally, medical professionals are evaluated by whether they meet a standard of care a certain degree of skill and knowledge that would be considered the norm amongst peers when it comes to evaluating whether malpractice has occurred. Chaiten explained that the bill was designed to help pregnant people get information about all their medical options, whether or not the doctors involved would participate in carrying out the patients chosen course of action.

Stages of a fetus are displayed at the Illinois Right To Life a table while Republican presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee speaks at the Freedoms Journal Institute for the Study of Faith and Public Policy 2015 Rise Initiative on July 31, 2015 in Tinley Park, Illinois.

The ACLU of Illinois was one of the leading forces in the state working to pass the new amendment to guarantee that patients were not denied knowledge of treatment options at the expense of a providers religious beliefs.

For example, Chaiten pointed to a situation in which a pregnant woman who had planned to have a tubal ligation could be wheeled into an operating room for a C-section, totally unaware that her Catholic doctor wouldnt perform the tubal ligation. In that case, the woman might have to have a risky second surgery. The surgeons objections should have been made clear prior to the initial surgery.

Crisis pregnancy centers being forced to disclose the full range of a peoples medical options is simply a side effect of the larger amendment. Because health care provider is defined very broadly under the statute, anybody who issues any aspect of the provision of health care is covered by the statute by definition, Chaiten said.

It means that crisis pregnancy centers and the people who work in them who hold themselves out as health care providers are covered by Right of Conscience and now must also meet the obligations of this new amendment.

Chaiten doesnt have a lot of sympathy for the CPCs arguments that they have a First Amendment right to keep from telling their patients the full truth. You dont get a free pass. When every other health care provider has to give standard of care information, so do you, Chaiten says. Its not like you have to say, abortion is good. Thats not what it is.

And, there is legal precedent for the government to regulate commercial and professional speech in a way they cant with other forms of speech, Kelli Garcia, senior counsel with the National Womens Law Center, said.

Garcia said that this area of First Amendment law is pretty well established because the government has an interest and a duty to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.

NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 25: Participants in the International Gift of Life Walk, a pro-Life, anti-abortion event in New York, New York on March 25, 2017. Photo Credit: Rainmaker Photo/MediaPunch/IPX

Chaiten said that, in a number of amicus briefs theyve filed on these such issues, the ACLU has noted that patients make decisions about where to go based on the information a provider advertises, just as they make decisions about the kind of treatment they will receive based on the kind of information a provider gives them. She explained that this is exactly the sort of speech the Supreme Court envisioned as commercial speech, so that it could constitutionally be regulated to require accuracy.

Meanwhile, the challenges to Illinois amendment come on the heels of the news that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals moved to uphold San Franciscos Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordinance another law recently challenged by CPCs. The San Francisco law prohibits CPCs from making false or misleading statements claiming that they offer abortions, emergency contraception or referrals to abortion providers.

The NWLCs Garcia says the Ninth Districts ruling speaks to exactly the issues now at play in Illinois.

We have truth in advertising laws that exist in other realms, and crisis pregnancy centers shouldnt be able to say were going to get out of the standards, the rules and regulations that regulate everyone else, Garcia says. People expect when they see advertisements that they get what they expect.

And in both San Francisco and Illinois, Garcia says, the laws simply require that anyone who positions themselves as a health care provider to live up to the same standards as all health care providers.

See the original post:

Why pro-life doctors want the First Amendment to protect their right to lie to patients - Mic

Tor network will pay you to hack it through new bug bounty program … – ZDNet

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

HackerOne

The Tor Project has joined with HackerOne to launch a public bug bounty program aimed at finding vulnerabilities which could compromise the anti-surveillance network.

The Tor network is a system of nodes and relays used to mask online activity, as well as access areas of the Internet not indexed by so-called "clear web" search engines.

While sometimes associated with Dark web illegal trading and nefarious goods, Tor is also a key tool for activists, privacy enthusiasts, and journalists looking to keep their online activities private.

Cybercriminals and governments alike are constantly poking the system to find vulnerabilities to exploit for surveillance purposes.

This year, the FBI used a "non-public' vulnerability to unmask individuals connected to child pornography, but as the agency refused to reveal how this was achieved, the case was dropped.

Tor is not 100 percent safe from compromise; no system is. However, to close the net on any bugs which may be used in similar ways in the future -- no matter the cause -- Tor is asking researchers to scour the network for any weak links.

"Millions of people around the world depend on Tor to browse the internet privately and securely every day, so our security is critical," The Tor team says. "Bugs in our code pose one of the biggest threats to our users' safety; they allow skilled attackers to bypass Tor's protections and compromise the safety of Tor users."

On Thursday, Tor launched a public bug bounty program under the moniker #HackTor. Hosted on the HackerOne platform, the scheme is specifically targeting security flaws in the Tor network daemon and Tor browser used to access the network.

In particular, Tor would like to see reports of any remote code execution flaws, local privilege escalation, unauthorized access of user data, or attacks that cause the leakage of crypto material of relays or clients.

Depending on the severity of the issue, researchers can expect to earn up to $4,000 per report.

The public bug bounty follows in the steps of a private program launched in January 2016 which resulted in three denial-of-service flaws and four edge-case memory corruption bugs being discovered, fixed, and rewarded.

See also: The 10 step guide to using Tor to protect your privacy

Tor Browser chief Georg Koppen told HackerOne that the decision to go public was made once the private system allowed the Tor team to better organize their workflow.

"We want to expand relationships with the research community and make our software more secure in the process," Koppen says. "Reported bugs will help us to address issues before they can potentially become a threat to our network of users."

"I can easily see expanding the program's scope beyond Tor and Tor Browser to cover other parts of our software ecosystem or even infrastructure as well," he added.

Go here to see the original:

Tor network will pay you to hack it through new bug bounty program ... - ZDNet

What is Cryptocurrency: Everything you Need to Know

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

What is cryptocurrency: 21st-century unicorn or the money of the future?

This introduction explains the most important thing about cryptocurrencies. After youve read it, youll know more about it than most other humans.

Today cryptocurrencies have become a global phenomenon known to most people. While still somehow geeky and not understood by most people, banks, governments and many companies are aware of its importance.

In 2016, youll have a hard time finding a major bank, a big accounting firm, a prominent software company or a government that did not research cryptocurrencies, publish a paper about it or start a so-called blockchain-project.

Virtual currencies, perhaps most notably Bitcoin, have captured the imagination of some, struck fear among others, and confused the heck out of the rest of us. Thomas Carper, US-Senator

But beyond the noise and the press releases the overwhelming majority of people even bankers, consultants, scientists, and developers have a very limited knowledge about cryptocurrencies. They often fail to even understand the basic concepts.

So lets walk through the whole story. What are cryptocurrencies?

Where did cryptocurrency originate?

Why should you learn about cryptocurrency?

And what do you need to know about cryptocurrency?

Few people know, but cryptocurrencies emerged as a side product of another invention. Satoshi Nakamoto, the unknown inventor of Bitcoin, the first and still most important cryptocurrency, never intended to invent a currency.

In his announcement of Bitcoin in late 2008, Satoshi said he developed A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

His goal was to invent something; many people failed to create before digital cash.

The single most important part of Satoshis invention was that he found a way to build a decentralized digital cash system. In the nineties, there have been many attempts to create digital money, but they all failed.

After seeing all the centralized attempts fail, Satoshi tried to build a digital cash system without a central entity. Like a Peer-to-Peer network for file sharing.

This decision became the birth of cryptocurrency. They are the missing piece Satoshi found to realize digital cash. The reason why is a bit technical and complex, but if you get it, youll know more about cryptocurrencies than most people do. So, lets try to make it as easy as possible:

To realize digital cash you need a payment network with accounts, balances, and transaction. Thats easy to understand. One major problem every payment network has to solve is to prevent the so-called double spending: to prevent that one entity spends the same amount twice. Usually, this is done by a central server who keeps record about the balances.

In a decentralized network, you dont have this server. So you need every single entity of the network to do this job. Every peer in the network needs to have a list with all transactions to check if future transactions are valid or an attempt to double spend.

But how can these entities keep a consensus about this records?

If the peers of the network disagree about only one single, minor balance, everything is broken. They need an absolute consensus. Usually, you take, again, a central authority to declare the correct state of balances. But how can you achieve consensus without a central authority?

Nobody did know until Satoshi emerged out of nowhere. In fact, nobody believed it was even possible.

Satoshi proved it was. His major innovation was to achieve consensus without a central authority. Cryptocurrencies are a part of this solution the part that made the solution thrilling, fascinating and helped it to roll over the world.

[optin-monster-shortcode id=kzvnolsiafjpwmac]

If you take away all the noise around cryptocurrencies and reduce it to a simple definition, you find it to be just limited entries in a database no one can change without fulfilling specific conditions. This may seem ordinary, but, believe it or not: this is exactly how you can define a currency.

Take the money on your bank account: What is it more than entries in a database that can only be changed under specific conditions? You can even take physical coins and notes: What are they else than limited entries in a public physical database that can only be changed if you match the condition than you physically own the coins and notes? Money is all about a verified entry in some kind of database of accounts, balances, and transactions.

How miners create coins and confirm transactions

Lets have a look at the mechanism ruling the databases of cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency like Bitcoin consists of a network of peers. Every peer has a record of the complete history of all transactions and thus of the balance of every account.

A transaction is a file that says, Bob gives X Bitcoin to Alice and is signed by Bobs private key. Its basic public key cryptography, nothing special at all. After signed, a transaction is broadcasted in the network, sent from one peer to every other peer. This is basic p2p-technology. Nothing special at all, again.

The transaction is known almost immediately by the whole network. But only after a specific amount of time it gets confirmed.

Confirmation is a critical concept in cryptocurrencies. You could say that cryptocurrencies are all about confirmation.

As long as a transaction is unconfirmed, it is pending and can be forged. When a transaction is confirmed, it is set in stone. It is no longer forgeable, it cant be reversed, it is part of an immutable record of historical transactions: of the so-called blockchain.

Only miners can confirm transactions. This is their job in a cryptocurrency-network. They take transactions, stamp them as legit and spread them in the network. After a transaction is confirmed by a miner, every node has to add it to its database. It has become part of the blockchain.

For this job, the miners get rewarded with a token of the cryptocurrency, for example with Bitcoins. Since the miners activity is the single most important part of cryptocurrency-system we should stay for a moment and take a deeper look on it.

Principally everybody can be a miner. Since a decentralized network has no authority to delegate this task, a cryptocurrency needs some kind of mechanism to prevent one ruling party from abusing it. Imagine someone creates thousands of peers and spreads forged transactions. The system would break immediately.

So, Satoshi set the rule that the miners need to invest some work of their computers to qualify for this task. In fact, they have to find a hash a product of a cryptographic function that connects the new block with its predecessor. This is called the Proof-of-Work. In Bitcoin, it is based on the SHA 256 Hash algorithm.

You dont need to understand details about SHA 256. Its only important you know that it can be the basis of a cryptologic puzzle the miners compete to solve. After finding a solution, a miner can build a block and add it to the blockchain. As an incentive, he has the right to add a so-called coinbase transaction that gives him a specific number of Bitcoins. This is the only way to create valid Bitcoins.

Bitcoins can only be created ifminers solve a cryptographic puzzle. Since the difficulty of this puzzle increases with the amount of computer power the whole miners invest, there is only a specific amount of cryptocurrency token than can be created in a given amount of time. This is part of the consensus no peer in the network can break.

If you really think about it, Bitcoin, as a decentralized network of peers which keep a consensus about accounts and balances, is more a currency than the numbers you see in your bank account. What are these numbers more than entries in a database a database which can be changed by people you dont see and by rules you dont know?

It is that narrative of human development under which we now have other fights to fight, and I would say in the realm of Bitcoin it is mainly the separation of money and state.

Erik Voorhees,cryptocurrency entrepreneur

Basically, cryptocurrencies are entries about token in decentralized consensus-databases. They are called CRYPTOcurrencies because the consensus-keeping process is secured by strong cryptography. Cryptocurrencies are built on cryptography. They are not secured by people or by trust, but by math. It is more probable that an asteroid falls on your house than that a bitcoin address is compromised.

Describing the properties of cryptocurrencies we need to separate between transactional and monetary properties. While most cryptocurrencies share a common set of properties, they are not carved in stone.

1.) Irreversible: After confirmation, a transaction cant be reversed. By nobody. And nobody means nobody. Not you, not your bank, not the president of the United States, not Satoshi, not your miner. Nobody. If you send money, you send it. Period. No one can help you, if you sent your funds to a scammer or if a hacker stole them from your computer. There is no safety net.

2.) Pseudonymous: Neither transactions nor accounts are connected to real world identities. You receive Bitcoins on so-called addresses, which are randomly seeming chains of around 30 characters. While it is usually possible to analyze the transaction flow, it is not necessarily possible to connect the real world identity of users with those addresses.

3.) Fast and global: Transaction are propagated nearly instantly in the network and are confirmed in a couple of minutes. Since they happen in a global network of computers they are completely indifferent of your physical location. It doesnt matter if I send Bitcoin to my neighbour or to someone on the other side of the world.

4.) Secure: Cryptocurrency funds are locked in a public key cryptography system. Only the owner of the private key can send cryptocurrency. Strong cryptography and the magic of big numbers makes it impossible to break this scheme. A Bitcoin address is more secure than Fort Knox.

5.) Permissionless: You dont have to ask anybody to use cryptocurrency. Its just a software that everybody can download for free. After you installed it, you can receive and send Bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies. No one can prevent you. There is no gatekeeper.

1.) Controlled supply: Most cryptocurrencies limit the supply of the tokens. In Bitcoin, the supply decreases in time and will reach its final number somewhere in around 2140. All cryptocurrencies control the supply of the token by a schedule written in the code. This means the monetary supply of a cryptocurrency in every given moment in the future can roughly be calculated today. There is no surprise.

2.) No debt but bearer: The Fiat-money on your bank account is created by debt, and the numbers, you see on your ledger represent nothing but debts. Its a system of IOU. Cryptocurrencies dont represent debts. They just represent themselves. They are money as hard as coins of gold.

To understand the revolutionary impact of cryptocurrencies you need to consider both properties. Bitcoin as a permissionless, irreversible and pseudonymous means of payment is an attack on the control of banks and governments over the monetary transactions of their citizens. You cant hinder someone to use Bitcoin, you cant prohibit someone to accept a payment, you cant undo a transaction.

As money with a limited, controlled supply that is not changeable by a government, a bank or any other central institution, cryptocurrencies attack the scope of the monetary policy. They take away the control central banks take on inflation or deflation by manipulating the monetary supply.

While its still fairly new and unstable relative to the gold standard, cryptocurrency is definitely gaining traction and will most certainly have more normalized uses in the next few years. Right now, in particular, its increasing in popularity with the post-election market uncertainty. The key will be in making it easy for large-scale adoption (as with anything involving crypto) including developing safeguards and protections for buyers / investors. I expect that within two years, well be in a place where people can shove their money under the virtual mattress through cryptocurrency, and theyll know that wherever they go, that money will be there. Sarah Granger, Author, and Speaker.

Mostly due to its revolutionary properties cryptocurrencies have become a success their inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, didnt dare to dream ofit. While every other attempt to create a digital cash system didnt attract a critical mass of users, Bitcoin had something that provoked enthusiasm and fascination. Sometimes it feels more like religion than technology.

Cryptocurrencies are digital gold. Sound money that is secure from political influence. Money that promises to preserve and increase its value over time. Cryptocurrencies are also a fast and comfortable means of payment with a worldwide scope, and they are private and anonymous enough to serve as a means of payment for black markets and any other outlawed economic activity.

Read this article:

What is Cryptocurrency: Everything you Need to Know

Don’t Look Now, but Cryptocurrency Ethereum Is Crashing …

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

When investors think of unstoppable trends, marijuana stocks might rightly come to mind. But in terms of percentage returns, nothing has even come close to cryptocurrency ethereum, which has risen by right around 2,270% for the year, as of July 17, 2017. By comparison, it's taken the S&P 500 roughly 35 years to log a return of about 2,000%.

Ethereum's massive gains, and that of its bigger rival bitcoin, are primarily the result of a weaker dollar and growing media and investor interest in cryptocurrencies.

Image source: Getty Images.

For instance, earlier this year, we witnessed Japan make bitcoin a legal form of tender, as long as it complies with the country's anti-money laundering regulations. This nod of confidence comes with a growing list of retailers and service providers, such as Overstock.comand Microsoft, that in some way accept bitcoin as payment.Even select marijuana dispensaries have turned to cryptocurrencies as a bridge between consumers with debit and credit cards and financial institutions that want nothing to do with the cannabis industry.

Weakness in the U.S. dollar, which recently hit a 10-month low, has also fueled buying in digital currencies. Though a weaker domestic currency helps drum up interest in exports, domestic investors typically dislike dollar declines. A devaluation in the dollar usually means investors will seek out a better store of value, which traditionally has been gold. Gold is a finite resource, and thus its scarcity provides the perception of safety and value to investors. However, mined cryptocurrencies like bitcoin also have a finite limit (21 million coins in bitcoin's case), offering the perception of scarcity and value.

The fact that these currencies aren't backed by the government, and that the public still doesn't understand them very well, has also arguably fueled interest and momentum.

But as the old proverb goes, "What goes up must come down."

Image source: Getty Images.

Following what was a better-than-5,000% run higher in a matter of months at one point, ethereum has seen its value crash in recent weeks. Since touching an all-time high of $407.10 back on June 12, ethereum has given back more than half of its value.As of 7:15 p.m. EDT on July 17, it was going for less than $189 per coin, and it had dipped as low as $130.26 during this past weekend. From peak to trough, we're talking about a 68% loss in value in less than five weeks, or more than $20 billion in market cap erased.

What on earth is going on, you ask? Some of this recent drop could be nothing more than simple profit-taking. Keep in mind that we're talking about an asset that appreciated by around 5,000% at one point this year. Considering how few businesses accept ethereum as payment, investors would have been foolish not to lock in some of their gains. But profit-taking is far from the only reason ethereum has been taken to the woodshed over the past month.

Another issue concerns the uncertain future of bitcoin. On Aug. 1, bitcoin is set to undergo a software update. The issue at hand is that those who are responsible for the upkeep of bitcoin behind the scenes have split into two factions, and are thus planning to adopt two separate and competing software updates. According to Bloomberg, these factions are debating whether bitcoin should evolve as a currency to serve more mainstream applications or remain as a libertarian test to monetary theory.

Though the incentive to reach a consensus and calm investors is obviously high, there remains a very real risk that bitcoin could subsequently split into two separate cryptocurrencies if a consensus is not reached. This instability has carried over to ethereum, which is regarded by some pundits to have a better underlying technology and broader use than bitcoin.

Finally, as CNBC pointed out, start-ups could be behind the recent plunge in ethereum. Sky-high returns have allowed start-ups the opportunity to cash in their ethereum coins for an equivalent amount of U.S. dollars, thus increasing selling pressure on the cryptocurrency.

Image source: Getty Images.

Perhaps the biggest issue yet to be decided with cryptocurrencies like ethereum and bitcoin is whether decentralization is a friend or foe.

In one sense, decentralization is a great thing. Having numerous miners across the globe effectively keeps these cryptocurrencies from succumbing to the will of cyberattacks. If there was a central network behind bitcoin, as an example, it could become an easy target for criminals.

Then again, a lack of centralization on cryptocurrency trading exchanges is arguably bad news. Competing exchanges and a lack of trade centralization are what drive volatility and reduce the uptake of these currencies by businesses.

In short, there's a lot left to be hashed out in the coming weeks for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. While they represent an alluring alternative for consumers who dislike the traditional monetary system, use options are still pretty limited, and translating cryptocurrencies into U.S. dollars often has a lag time that can result in losses for investors and businesses. There are numerous issues that need to be tackled before ethereum, bitcoin, or any cryptocurrency for that matter, really has a shot at thriving over the long run. For the time being, I suggest sticking with a tried-and-true wealth creator like the stock market and keeping cryptocurrencies like ethereum out of your investment portfolio.

Teresa Kersten is an employee of LinkedIn and is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. Sean Williams has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

See more here:

Don't Look Now, but Cryptocurrency Ethereum Is Crashing ...

Latest Cryptocurrency Hub: Kazakhstan? – Investopedia

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Investopedia

Latest Cryptocurrency Hub: Kazakhstan?
Investopedia
The Kazakhstan government announced this week that its AIFC will partner with the external financial organizations to make for an accommodating regulatory climate to encourage cryptocurrency, blockchain, and fintech companies to settle in the area.

See original here:

Latest Cryptocurrency Hub: Kazakhstan? - Investopedia

How Do You Get Rich Off of a New Cryptocurrency? – Investopedia

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Investopedia

How Do You Get Rich Off of a New Cryptocurrency?
Investopedia
Cryptocurrencies have been the most exciting financial topic of 2017 for many investors, and with good reason. Bitcoin jumped in price, reaching highs of more than $3,000 earlier this year. Ethereum and Ripple, the second- and third-largest digital ...

and more »

Originally posted here:

How Do You Get Rich Off of a New Cryptocurrency? - Investopedia

Hackers steal $34 million in second Ethereum cryptocurrency theft this week – PC Gamer

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Flickr via Doctorow. Click for original.

One of the most popular cryptocurrencies in the world is drawing increased attention from hackers, or at least that has been the case this week. For the second time in a span of just three days, hackers have been able to make off with millions of dollars worth of Ethereum, leaving vigilante white hat hackers scrambling to prevent further theft.

In this latest robbery, the hacking group (or individual hacker, we don't know yet) exploited a vulnerability in Parity, a digital wallet service where cryptocurrency miners can store their Ethereum. In doing so, the hackers were able to swipe over 153,000 Ether worth approximately $34 million from three separate multi-signature Ethereum wallets, according to the most recent estimates.

Following the latest heist, Parity founder Gavin Wood issued a critical security notice to users.

"A vulnerability in Parity Wallet's variant of the standard multi-sig contract has been found," Wood wrote. He goes on to advise users to "immediately move assets contained in the multi-sig wallet to a secure address."

In the meantime, white hat hackers have been able to siphon some 377,015 Ether worth more than $85 million to prevent further loss.

"White hat group(s) were made aware of a vulnerability in a specific version of a commonly used multi-sig contract. This vulnerability was trivial to execute, so they took the necessary action to drain every vulnerable multi-sig they could find as quickly as possible," the White Hat Group stated on Reddit.

Those funds will be issued back to their owners after the group is able to create another multi-sig for each individual with the same settings as before, minus the vulnerability that made theft possible in the first place.

This is not the only black eye for cryptocurrencies, or even the only theft this week. Back on Monday, hackers made off with an estimated $10.3 million in Ethereum currency from CoinDash. In that instance, it is believed the culprits simply replaced the legitimate Ethereum wallet address listed on CoinDesk with one that belonged to them.

There are several other examples of thieves stealing large amounts of cryptocurrencies, as Gizmodo points out. Back in June of last year, hackers stole $53 million cryptocurrency from venture capital fund Decentralized Autonomous Organization. And then there was the situation in which $450 million of Bitcoin vanished from trading hub Mt. Gox a few years ago.

Despite the risks, mining for cryptocurrency continues be popular, much to the detriment of PC gaming. If and when things ever settle down, it will likely be due to plummeting values rather than the fear of theft.

Track Cryptocurrency Prices with Crypto Trakr – XDA Developers (blog)

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

XDA Developers (blog)

Track Cryptocurrency Prices with Crypto Trakr
XDA Developers (blog)
The world of cryptocurrency is one that seems to only get bigger and bigger with every passing day. Chances are many of you reading this have tried your hand at buying and/or selling some form of cryptocurrency at one point or another, and a new app by ...

Go here to see the original:

Track Cryptocurrency Prices with Crypto Trakr - XDA Developers (blog)

Best Apps to Track Cryptocurrency Prices on a Mac – Investopedia

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

The Merkle

Best Apps to Track Cryptocurrency Prices on a Mac
Investopedia
Bitcoin Ticker is a simple app that provides a service exactly as you would expect based on its name: it serves as a ticker for Bitcoin, with information about a number of different exchanges available at once. The app has not been updated since 2014 ...
Top 6 Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Books to Check out This SummerThe Merkle

all 13 news articles »

Best Apps to Track Cryptocurrency Prices on a Mac - Investopedia

X Open Hub COO Explains Reasons for Adding Cryptocurrency Liquidity – Finance Magnates

Posted on July 21, 2017 by Danzig

Michal Copiuk is theChief Operating Officer ofX Open Hub, a multi-asset liquidity and trading technology provider for financial institutions and retail brokerages. Finance Magnates interviewedCopiuk to understand the firms reasons for becoming a cryptocurrency liquidity provider.

Learn how to buy Bitcoin and Ethereum safely with our simple guide!

Despite the increasing popularity and publicity it enjoys, not many people yet know how to trade with cryptocurrencies. A lot of investors are not feeling comfortable with the technology needed to store bitcoins and other altcoins. As various statistics show there is still some lack of trustworthiness in the technology used to store clients coins, no matter if those are virtual wallets or hard wallets.

Clients are also afraid of the security of their fiat money, as many of the available exchanges are not regulated.

We very well know the history of the top crypto exchanges that have failed to deliver necessary level of security for their clients. What is more, even today many of them have some technical problems, either with API or quoting one of the several instruments from their portfolio.

Also, many exchanges do not accept fiat money. Clients have to buy Tether to transfer the funds to the exchange, so the process is time and cost consuming. Moreover, a lot of retail clients are not satisfied with the time it takes to execute a transfer of their virtual currency as well as receive a confirmation of such transfer.

Of course, a lot is being done to achieve improvements. Solutions like SegWit2x or increasing the capacity of the individual blocks are being introduced, but the whole network is still growing and it will take some time to implement those changes.

Therefore, a lot of clients willing to invest or speculate on bitcoin and other altcoins are looking for the alternatives, especially that they would like to have those products leveraged with the most competitive spreads aggregated from many exchanges.

We are not afraid of the new. We want our customers to have access to novelties, and we want to guarantee them, that if they stay with us, theyll find everything that will keep their business innovative and agile. Thats the reason why we have decided to introduce this new asset class to our liquidity offer.

During the last several weeks we have established connections to the top cryptocurrency exchanges. We have optimized the feeds, spreads and the execution. We have secured ourselves and our clients with in-house developed technologies against any flash crashes or technical problems in any of the venues.

What is more, we are able to offer liquidity for cryptocurrencies starting from 5% margin.

Lastly, in comparison to many unregulated exchanges offering cryptocurrencies, our offer can be fully trusted. Our capital group is regulated by FCA, KNF, Cysec and IFS and our licenses are passported to more than 10 EU countries and our group is listed on Warsaw Stock Exchange.

This is a great possibility for our partners to entice their retail customers to this type of investment, by offering them fair spreads, fast execution and wide range of instruments. We believe that the brokers have to follow the latest trends, and thus they should treat cryptocurrencies as a fantastic tool to acquire more customers or retain the existing ones, by facilitating their trading with bitcoin and other altcoins.

Not at all. Integration with our liquidity pool can be conducted within 24 hours. We offer API, FIX, MT4 GW and other in-house developed connection methods. Also, our hedge accounts can be handled in multiple currencies.

In terms of short term plans, being aware that as every trading product, this one is also developing and evolving very fast and new cryptocurrencies emerge on the market, we constantly expand our offer. In fact we have already scheduled adding new cryptocurrencies to our portfolio.

In a long term, however, we are aiming to be the top Liquidity Provider for Cryptocurrencies in the world.

View post:

X Open Hub COO Explains Reasons for Adding Cryptocurrency Liquidity - Finance Magnates

Select Page ::