Russia Sent 2500 Troops to Its Border Near Latvia and Estonia Amid Fears of Conflict and Annexation – Newsweek

Posted on by

Russia has called 2,500 troops to an airborne military drill in its Pskov region, bordering NATO allies Latvia and Estonia, state news agency Itar-Tass reported on Wednesday.The drill will involve 40 aircraft, with airborne troopspracticinglanding in unfamiliar lands. The exercises were described as counterrorist drills.

Concern has been mounting for years among some European officials over whetherRussia could strike the Balticsfollowing its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The sizeable exercise of Russias elite paratrooper division (VDV) is set to take place off the town of Kislovo, less than 50km from Russias border with Estonia, around the base of the very unit that reportedly endured heavy losses in Ukraine in 2014. The disappearance of the Pskov soldiers, reported killed, was one of the first high-profile pieces of evidence that Russian forces had entered Ukraine.

Read More: Russian nuclear submarine fires cruise missile in Arctic Barents Sea

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

Concern about a possible war in the Baltics is high, with majorities in Lithuania and Latvia namingarmed conflict as a prime concern and all three fearing the likelihood of war more than that of extremist attacks, according to various polls.Russia has formally denied it would ever attack a member of NATO, which all three nations of the Baltics are.

But the promises of Moscow diplomats have done little to assuage worries in the former Soviet Unionstates, largely because of Russias interpretation of events in Ukraine. Russia initially insisted its troops were not participants in the Crimean annexation and continues to deny that it has a military presence in eastern Ukraine.

Russian military experts have warned that deploying staff involved in events in Ukraine to territory near the Baltic may be a deliberate, implicit scare tactic by Moscow, rather than a genuine intention to attack the Baltics.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are among the biggest beneficiaries of NATOs updated eastern strategy as three battalions are set to rotate between them. Besides NATO support, citizens and officialsin Latvia and Lithuania have backed an idea less fondly thought of among many of their allies:aEuropean armed force.

See the rest here:

Russia Sent 2500 Troops to Its Border Near Latvia and Estonia Amid Fears of Conflict and Annexation - Newsweek

US Troops Reassure Allies in Poland Ahead of Trump’s G-20 Visit – NBCNews.com

Posted on by

U.S. Army soldiers move an armored Stryker vehicle into position during live-fire training. Carlo Angerer / NBC News

Reliant on American support and fearful of Russian influence, European leaders will be closely watching

"The stakes are pretty high for Europe in terms of how that meeting turns out," said Susi Dennison, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. "For Europe, how the personal meeting goes between these two is going to be pretty crucial."

European leaders are also unsure whose word actually represents U.S. policy, according to Matthew Harries, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British research institute.

Establishment figures in his team, such as Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, have been far more clear than their boss in supporting NATO's allies across the pond.

Related:

In May, after Trump failed to endorse Article 5 during a speech at NATO's headquarters in Brussels, McMaster, told journalists later that "of course" the president backed the principle of collective defense.

One r

"Nobody's entirely sure who speaks for the U.S. and whether what the president says is official policy, which is very unusual," said Matthew Harries, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British research institute.

"European leaders are perfectly happy with Mattis but their problem is with Trump," Harries added. "Does the president speak for the U.S. or does the defense secretary? If it's Mattis then Europe will be happy. If it's Trump then they won't."

Continue reading here:

US Troops Reassure Allies in Poland Ahead of Trump's G-20 Visit - NBCNews.com

Another View: NSA needs to secure its files and techniques more tightly – Press Herald

Posted on by

The phenomenon of a recent widespread cyberattack, using weapons developed by the U.S. National Security Agency to disrupt major computer operations all over the globe, is not surprising, but it does call for urgent action on the federal governments part.

Weapons proliferation grew much more lethal when the United States developed the atomic bomb, intended to end World War II more rapidly. The technology then got handed to the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons eventually ended up in the hands of China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States.

More recently, Americas and others cyberweapons creatively have been used to mess up Irans nuclear enrichment program, using the computer worm known as Stuxnet. It also appears that U.S. cyberaction has been used to gum up North Koreas rocket launches.

The problem now is that some of the clever procedures that NSA developed have leaked out, or have been developed independently by people in basements and elsewhere in Kiev, Moscow and Pyongyang, and are being used as they were last week from Ukraine to sabotage important systems, as well as to try to shake down computer system users across the world.

The NSA witness contractor-defector Edward J. Snowden is showing itself to be leaky. Its having difficulty protecting what it knows and preventing unintended use of the skills it develops.

The NSA must button up its files and techniques much more tightly. And whatever cyberweapons we have, we must also stay ahead in that game in our capacity to protect our own cyber infrastructure.

The penalty for falling behind in that development is chaos and danger in our society and country, incredibly high stakes given our vulnerability.

Read the original:

Another View: NSA needs to secure its files and techniques more tightly - Press Herald

Posted in NSA

The Bootlegger, the Wiretap, and the Beginning of Privacy – The New Yorker

Posted on by

Nearly a century before a U.S. President accused his predecessor of ordering a tapp on his private telephone line, and before he tweeted a warning to the head of the F.B.I. that he had better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations, a professional spy, armed with a pack of cigarettes and an earpiece, hid in the basement of the Henry Building, in downtown Seattle, catching crackling bits of words being spoken miles away. Richard Fryant had worked as a wiretapper for the New York Telephone Company, tasked with eavesdropping on his own colleagues, and now took freelance assignments in the Queen City. On this occasion, he was seeking dirt on Seattles corrupt mayorwho was suspected of having ties to Roy Olmstead, a local bootleggerfor a political rival. At the behest of his client, Fryant rigged micro-wires to a certain exchange, ELliott-6785, and began to listen.

They got that load, one man said, breathing heavily.

The hell they didwho? asked another.

The federals.

The men speaking on ELliott-6785 hung up, but the conversation had only just begun.

Criminals and Prohibition officials alike called Olmstead the good bootlegger, a moniker that reflected his singular business philosophy. He never diluted his whiskey with water or corrupted it with poison; he declined to dabble in the seedier offshoots of his profession, such as drugs or prostitution; and he abhorred violence, forbidding members of his organization from carrying weapons (No amount of money is worth a human life, he cautioned). If apprehended, his men were instructed to rely on bribes instead of violence.

Olmstead had a particular respect for policemen, having been a member of the Seattle force for thirteen years, reaching the rank of lieutenant. In 1920, with the onset of Prohibition, the thirty-three-year-old married father of two ventured to the other side of the law, making midnight runs to retrieve imported Canadian liquor from tugboats in the Puget Sound. This practice earned his dismissal from the force and made him a local celebrity. With his old police colleagues on his payroll, he was free to conduct business brazenly and with impunity, often unloading his booze at high noon from trucks marked Fresh Fish. Seattle citizens were thrilled to glimpse Olmstead on the street, wearing a fine suit and carrying a wallet fat with money, always ready with a joke. As one acquaintance noted, It made a man feel important to casually remark, As Roy Olmstead was telling me today.

Olmsteads organization, comprised of an ever-growing staff of attorneys, dispatchers, clerks, skippers, navigators, bottlers, loaders, drivers, deliverymen, collectors, and salesmen, dominated the bootlegging scene in the Pacific Northwest. They relied heavily upon the telephone for day-to-day operations, using it to take orders, communicate updates on deliveries, and warn of impending raids, their words coursing across a web of wires connecting the citys fifty-two thousand devices (approximately one for every six citizens). Olmstead set up his communication headquarters in the Henry Building, just a block from the Federal Building, and established three exchanges: ELliott 6785, 6786, and 6787. One of his men, a former taxi dispatcher, sat during business hours at a roll-top desk, taking and making calls, keeping meticulous records of each transaction. If a serious matter arose, such as an employees arrest, Olmstead himself called a friend on the Seattle police force to have it quashed. At the end of each day, the dispatcher unplugged the three telephones, to stop their ceaseless ringing, and the routine began anew in the morning.

In early 1924, Olmstead was approached by Richard Fryant, the freelance wiretapper who had been hunkered down in the basement of the Henry Building, listening to Olmsteads lines. As the bootlegger would soon learn, Seattles Prohibition Director, William Whitney, had heard of Fryants surveillance and recruited him as a federal agent.

In Olmsteads version of events, Fryant presented him with a heavy stack of paper, explaining that the pages contained verbatim transcripts of conversations that had been conducted on the bootleggers office phone. For ten thousand dollars, Fryant said, the transcripts could be his. A quick perusal of the pages confirmed their authenticity.

A call from a cop to a worker at Olmsteads headquarters:

Down under the Fourth Avenue Bridge is a car with seven gallons of moonshine in it, and I was wondering if it is yours.

No . . . I dont think it is ours because we dont handle moonshine.

A call from Olmstead to the police station:

Hello, Roy, what is on your mind?

One of your fellows picked up one of my boys. . . . I dont give a damn what they do but I want to know before he is booked.

Ill take care of it for you, Roy.

A joking exchange between Olmstead and a dispatcher:

The federals will get you one of these days.

No, those sons of bitches are too slow to catch cold, Olmstead quipped,

Reading the pages, Olmstead maintained his composure. As a former police officer, he said, when hed finished reading, he knew a thing or two about the rules of evidence. Wiretapping was illegal in the state of Washington, so the pile of paper would be useless in a courtroom. Furthermore, Fryant could go straight to hell.

Olmsteads bravado did not prevent him from hiring a telephone repairman to search the Henry Building first thing in the morning. Together, they found and removed three temporary taps (affixed with coil wire rather than soldered)two in the basement and one in the womens restroom. Still unsettled, Olmstead returned the following day and discovered that all three taps were back.

Fryant and Whitneys wife, Clara, a skilled stenographer, continued to monitor ELliott-6785 from an office one floor below. At each days end, Clara gathered up the handwritten notes and typed them with fastidious precision. The pile of paper continued to grow.

For the first time in his bootlegger career, Olmstead started exercising some discretion about his wordsbut only some, because he still trusted that Fryants wiretapping evidence would never withstand legal scrutiny. When managing the arrival of his whiskey boats in Puget Sound, he used a public pay phone to issue instructions and directions. For less sensitive issues, he continued to use his office line, and even had fun at the wiretappers expense, calling Whitney profane names and giving false orders about the timing and location of deliveries. It amused him to imagine the Prohibition chief sitting alone in the freezing rain, grasping his gun and waiting for boats that would never come.

Whitneys patience paid off in October, 1924, when Canadian officials seized one of Olmsteads boats. Three months later, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Olmstead and ninety co-defendants for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act. The Whispering Wires case, as it came to be called, concluded with a guilty verdict, a fine of eight thousand dollars, and a sentence of four years hard labor. Convinced that his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated (the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and against self-incrimination, respectively), Olmstead put his lawyers to work on Olmstead v. The United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, maintaining that, because the federal agents wiretapping pursuits did not require them to trespass on Olmsteads property or confiscate physical possessions, there had been no breach of rights.

The Supreme Court heard Olmstead v. The United States in February, 1928, and, in a 54 decision, upheld Olmsteads conviction. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, speaking for the majority, recognized the murky morality of wiretapping. Nevertheless, he argued that the practice served a greater good. A standard which would forbid the reception of evidence if obtained by other than nice ethical conduct by government officials would make society suffer and give criminals greater immunity than has been known heretofore, he wrote. He rejected the heart of Olmsteads case, insisting that the Amendment does not forbid what was done here. There was no searching. There was no seizure. . . . The reasonable view is that one who installs in his house a telephone instrument with connecting wires intends to project his voice to those quite outside.

The dissenting opinion was penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, for whom the issue of privacy was both ancient and increasingly, inescapably modern. In 1890, while practicing law in Boston, he had co-authored an article published by the Harvard Law Review titled The Right to Privacya manifesto, as Jill Lepore has written in this magazine, that argues for the existence of a legal right to be let alonea right that had never been defined before. Although the telephone was still decades away from being a familiar and necessary aspect of our lives, nearly every line of The Right to Privacy reveals prophetic insight into current concerns about how best to shield our innermost selves. The intensity and complexity of life have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, Brandeis wrote.

The Right to Privacy became a seminal work, and one that clearly influenced Brandeis himself as he considered Olmsteads case. When the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution, he wrote in his dissent, the right to be left alone was inherent in the notion of pursuing happiness. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.

The media, although invested in a world where sensitive information might be easily and readily obtained, largely favored Brandeiss view. The Times declared that the Olmstead decision allowed universal snooping. The New Haven Journal-Courier predicted that every Tom, Dick and Harry would hereafter practice wiretapping without fear of reprisal. The editors of the weekly magazine Outlook were even more blunt, likening the verdict to a new Dred Scott and predicting dire consequences: We must weather the devastating effects of a decision that outrages a peoples sense of a security which they thought they had.

Forty years later, the Supreme Court finally caught up with Justice Brandeis, refining the Olmstead decision in two separate cases. In June, 1967, Berger v. New York considered the appeal of Ralph Berger, a public-relations consultant who had been convicted of conspiracy to bribe the chairman of the New York State Liquor Authority. Under the authority of a New York statute, police wiretapped Bergers phone for two months, and played excerpts of their recordings during the trial. In a 63 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the New York law was too broad in its sweepspecifically too long, as the two-month surveillance amounted to a series of intrusions, searches, and seizures that violated the defendants Fourth Amendment rights.

Six months later, the Supreme Court directly addressed the legacy of the Olmstead decision, in the case of Charles Katz, a California man convicted of placing illegal gambling wagers across state lines. Without a warrant, F.B.I. agents wiretapped public pay phones along Sunset Boulevard, hiding the device atop the bank of booths and listening in as Katz placed bets in Miami and Boston. The Court of Appeals upheld Katzs conviction, concluding that, since there had been no physical entrance, his privacy had not been compromised. In a 71 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, arguing that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that its reach cannot depend on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given space. Citing Justice Brandeiss manifesto, the Court established the protection of a persons general right to privacy (emphasis the Courts) and his right to be let alone.

Olmstead served his four-year sentence. Yet, in a way, he managed to win his case. Victory came in the form of a Presidential pardon, granted by Franklin D. Roosevelt, on Christmas Eve of 1935, which restored all of his rights as a citizen and cancelled the fine. Roosevelt was influenced, in part, by Olmsteads nascent transformation: hed quit drinking, converted to Christian Science, and started teaching the Bible to prisoners, who frequently asked if he was really *that *Roy Olmstead, the good bootlegger, the rum-running king of Puget Sound. His standard replyNo, not any more. The old Olmstead is deadamounted to fewer than a hundred and forty characters, and were the words he wished the whole world to hear.

Go here to read the rest:

The Bootlegger, the Wiretap, and the Beginning of Privacy - The New Yorker

Supreme Court divided on marijuana case, denies transfer – Indiana Lawyer

Posted on by

A deadlocked decision on whether to hear a case involving Fourth Amendment and similar state rights has led the Indiana Supreme Court to deny transfer to the case, with two justices dissenting on the denial of transfer.

The divided justices denied transfer to the case of Marcus Sanders v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1605-CR-971, last week, with Justices Mark Massa and Geoffrey Slaughter voting to deny transfer. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Marcus Sanders conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana in a December memorandum opinion.

Sanders was convicted after Marion County Sheriffs Deputy Brandon Stewart, who was working as a courtesy officer for an Indianapolis apartment complex, observed Sanders strike a curb twice while he moved his vehicle from one parking spot to another. Stewart, believing Sanders may have been intoxicated, approached Sanders, who began to exit the vehicle. However, Stewart told him to remain in the vehicle and then observed a baggie in the seat filled with a substance later identified as marijuana.

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, finding that at a state constitutional level, the degree of concern was high because Sanders conduct indicated he could be impaired. However, in a dissent to the denial of transfer, Justice Steve David disagreed with that analysis and instead said he believed the degree of intrusion, as proscribed in Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005), was low.

Specifically, David said the conclusion that the degree of intrusion was high was based on the fact that Sanders may have been impaired and could have returned to the road and put others at risk, a conclusion that was speculative and does not seem to be supported by the record. Further, because Stewart ordered Sanders to remain in his car, the interaction transitioned from a consensual encounter to an unlawful seizure, David said.

As counsel for Sanders aptly noted: (i)f striking a curb twice while pulling into a parking space gives rise to concern that someone is driving intoxicated, so too would many other common parking lot driving behaviors such as stopping abruptly or backing up to take a recently vacated parking space and the difficulty drivers encounter in parallel parking, David wrote in a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Loretta Rush. I agree. Bad parking alone is just not enough.

The four-person high court was similarly split on the question of whether to take the case of Ricky Johnson v. State of Indiana, 79S04-1705-CR-332, and reinstated the Court of Appeals decision to reverse Johnsons gun conviction in an order last week. Current Wabash Superior Judge Christopher Goff will join the high court on July 24, bringing the bench to its full capacity of five justices.

See the rest here:

Supreme Court divided on marijuana case, denies transfer - Indiana Lawyer

Suit slams Trump-influenced immigrant detentions in Florida – Miami Herald

Posted on by

Miami Herald
Suit slams Trump-influenced immigrant detentions in Florida
Miami Herald
The complaint says the county is in violation of the Fourth Amendment that protects people from unreasonable arrests. The lawsuit also says Florida law prohibits jail officials from detaining people for civil immigration purposes. Between Jan. 27 and ...
Florida ACLU Files Lawsuit Over Miami-Dade Immigration PolicyPatch.com

all 14 news articles »

Read the original post:

Suit slams Trump-influenced immigrant detentions in Florida - Miami Herald

Learning about the 2nd Amendment – Keokuk Gate City Daily

Posted on by

MONTROSE About 30 people attended the Lee County Young Republicans second meeting Saturday at the Tri-State Gun Club in Montrose.

The first meeting of the newly-formed GOP group was devoted to the First Amendment. The Second Amendment, stating, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, was the focus of Saturdays meeting.

Each were given a pocket-sized Constitution of the United States book provided by the Wapello County Republicans, which were represented at the meeting. There were sign-up sheets for upcoming events this week, such as the Donnellson Fourth of July Parade and Lee County Fair.

Three safety rules

Tri-State Gun Club President Dave Hunold presented on a program on gun safety, which he reduced to a few rules.

He said if everyone followed these rules there would be no such thing as accidental injury involving a firearm.

The first rule is treat every gun as if it is loaded, Hunold said.

Hunold demonstrated that a person should always safety-check when they pick up a gun.

Secondly, Hunold said one should never point the gun at anything you cant pay for or replace.

The third rule is to keep ones finger off the trigger unless one intends to use the gun.

Hunold demonstrated how to use a gun. He described the design and model of three types of guns a revolver, semi automatic pistol and semi automatic shotgun. He also informed everyone about the most important parts of a gun the muzzle, trigger, barrel and magazine.

Gun control

Des Moines County Co-President Eric Marshall spoke to the group about gun control.

The firearm comes in as a device of protection, Marshall said. Its something for Americans to protect themselves from those that wish to do them harm.

He added that there are irresponsible and responsible ways to use a gun. He said as long as it is properly handled there shouldnt be any problems.

He explained how there are some restrictions on gun usage in different countries and in the United States.

Marshall said that there is a lot more publicity about guns being used improperly than instances when they are used properly.

Capitol trip

After Marshall spoke, Wapello County Republicans Chair Trudy Caviness announced there will be a trip to the State Capitol at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, July 18. Lunch will be provided at the Republican headquarters. Anyone who is interested in joining the group can contact Caviness at 641-684-7585 by July 14.

After the meeting was over, everyone was invited to participate in trapshooting.

Lee County Young Republican Chair Jordean Stein said that it was a great turnout, with the number of young and older people that came.

Third Amendment is next

The next meeting will be about the Third Amendment on Saturday, Sept. 2, at the Keokuk National Cemetery.

Read more here:

Learning about the 2nd Amendment - Keokuk Gate City Daily

Donadio speaks about Second Amendment rights – My Eastern Shore

Posted on by

SALISBURY Barry Donadio gave remarks on the Second Amendment on June 26 to Republican constituents in Salisbury. The Wicomico County Republican Club of Maryland hosted his appearance and discussion at the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce located at 144 E. Main Street.

Our Second Amendment rights are an individual right and not for only those serving in the military, Donadio said.

During his talk, Donadio expressed his belief that the Second Amendment is a womens rights issue. He said, Every female U.S. citizen over the age of 18 and without a serious criminal history should have the unrestricted right to carry a concealed handgun on their person for self defense.

Donadio told constituents to never give up protecting the rights of the Second Amendment as it is an amendment that safeguards our liberties. Donadio advised the group to legally and safely exercise Second Amendment rights as the U.S. Constitution allows.

In attendance were President of the Wicomico County Republican Club Shawn Bradley, Maryland State Del. Johnny Mautz, Wicomico Republic Central Committeewoman Julie Brewington, Maryland State Sen. Addie Eckardt, Maryland State Circuit Court Judge Matthew A. Maciarello and the first female Police Chief of Salisbury, Barbara Duncan.

Donadio thanked the club for its hospitality.

Donadio led an honorable career in the volunteer ambulance service, volunteer fire department, the military, law enforcement and the United States Secret Service. He was assigned to the White House during the Bush and Obama administrations. He also served in multiple Middle Eastern war zones during his career. In 2013, he authored the book, TWA Flight 800 First Responder Witness Account.

In 2014, he was elected to the Queen Annes County Republican Central Committee in Maryland. He currently serves as President of Public Security LLC. He is also a Maryland State Police certified pistol instructor. In January 2017, Donadio was appointed the sergeant-at-arms of the Maryland Republican Party.

Visit link:

Donadio speaks about Second Amendment rights - My Eastern Shore

Editorial: Courts uphold common-sense limits to Second Amendments rights. – STLtoday.com

Posted on by

Gun rights advocates, unaccustomed to court defeats, were handed two setbacks late last month when a St. Louis Circuit Court judge and the U.S. Supreme Court both upheld limits on when and where guns may be carried in public. St. Louis Judge Joan Moriarty declared the St. Louis Zoo fits Missouri laws definition of a

, and the high court declined to hear a challenge to a California law that bans carrying guns openly in most situations. The 90-acre St. Louis Zoo campus has on-site preschool and childrens education programs. Nearly half a million students participate in the programs annually. About 3 million families and visitors come to see exhibits involving nearly 20,000 animals. In that family-friendly environment, guns are the last thing the zoo needs. Cincinnati gun rights activist Jeffry Smith announced plans in 2015 to lead a group of open-carry activists into the zoo to challenge its self-declared status as a gun-free zone. A temporary order blocked Smith, so he strapped on an empty holster to walk the grounds. Moriartys June 23 order now makes the zoo ban permanent. Parents strolling with their kids should not have to be constantly on the lookout for gun carriers looking to make a political point with a menacing display of holstered sidearms. The gun owner might think it enhances safety, but everyone else feels terrorized doubly so if an actual armed altercation develops. Friendly fire bullets are as deadly as those from an assailants gun. Visitors carrying guns, Moriarty ruled, would significantly harm the level of visitorship, as well as the mission, the public image and autonomy of the zoo as an institution. The

that was under challenge allows members of the public to carry concealed guns in public only if applicants can demonstrate good cause for needing to carry the weapon. Challengers said authorities in San Diego and Yolo County interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon but did not decide whether states have a right to ban openly carrying guns. Supreme Court justices did not explain why they

the challenge, allowing the lower court ruling to stand. Although the National Rifle Association maintains that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, public security is best left in the hands of trained professionals, not gun-toting bystanders. The possibility for tragic mishaps only grows when police have trouble distinguishing licensed gun owners from criminals. The NRA stokes fear to fight limits on open gun carry, but in these two rulings, common sense prevailed.

Gun rights advocates, unaccustomed to court defeats, were handed two setbacks late last month when a St. Louis Circuit Court judge and the U.S. Supreme Court both upheld limits on when and where guns may be carried in public. St. Louis Judge Joan Moriarty declared the St. Louis Zoo fits Missouri laws definition of a

gun-free zone, and the high court declined to hear a challenge to a California law that bans carrying guns openly in most situations. The 90-acre St. Louis Zoo campus has on-site preschool and childrens education programs. Nearly half a million students participate in the programs annually. About 3 million families and visitors come to see exhibits involving nearly 20,000 animals. In that family-friendly environment, guns are the last thing the zoo needs. Cincinnati gun rights activist Jeffry Smith announced plans in 2015 to lead a group of open-carry activists into the zoo to challenge its self-declared status as a gun-free zone. A temporary order blocked Smith, so he strapped on an empty holster to walk the grounds. Moriartys June 23 order now makes the zoo ban permanent. Parents strolling with their kids should not have to be constantly on the lookout for gun carriers looking to make a political point with a menacing display of holstered sidearms. The gun owner might think it enhances safety, but everyone else feels terrorized doubly so if an actual armed altercation develops. Friendly fire bullets are as deadly as those from an assailants gun. Visitors carrying guns, Moriarty ruled, would significantly harm the level of visitorship, as well as the mission, the public image and autonomy of the zoo as an institution. The

California lawthat was under challenge allows members of the public to carry concealed guns in public only if applicants can demonstrate good cause for needing to carry the weapon. Challengers said authorities in San Diego and Yolo County interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon but did not decide whether states have a right to ban openly carrying guns. Supreme Court justices did not explain why they

refused to hearthe challenge, allowing the lower court ruling to stand. Although the National Rifle Association maintains that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, public security is best left in the hands of trained professionals, not gun-toting bystanders. The possibility for tragic mishaps only grows when police have trouble distinguishing licensed gun owners from criminals. The NRA stokes fear to fight limits on open gun carry, but in these two rulings, common sense prevailed.

Gun rights advocates, unaccustomed to court defeats, were handed two setbacks late last month when a St. Louis Circuit Court judge and the U.S. Supreme Court both upheld limits on when and where guns may be carried in public. St. Louis Judge Joan Moriarty declared the St. Louis Zoo fits Missouri laws definition of a gun-free zone, and the high court declined to hear a challenge to a California law that bans carrying guns openly in most situations.

The 90-acre St. Louis Zoo campus has on-site preschool and childrens education programs. Nearly half a million students participate in the programs annually. About 3 million families and visitors come to see exhibits involving 20,000 animals. In that family-friendly environment, guns are the last thing the zoo needs.

Cincinnati gun rights activist Jeffry Smith announced plans in 2015 to lead a group of open-carry activists into the zoo to challenge its self-declared status as a gun-free zone. A temporary order blocked Smith, so he strapped on an empty holster to walk the grounds. Moriartys June 23 order now makes the zoo ban permanent.

Parents strolling with their kids should not have to be constantly on the lookout for gun carriers looking to make a political point with a menacing display of holstered sidearms. The gun owner might think it enhances safety, but everyone else feels terrorized doubly so if an actual armed altercation develops. Friendly fire bullets are as deadly as those from an assailants gun.

Visitors carrying guns, Moriarty ruled, would significantly harm the level of visitorship, as well as the mission, the public image and autonomy of the zoo as an institution.

The California law that was under challenge allows members of the public to carry concealed guns in public only if applicants can demonstrate good cause for needing to carry the weapon. Challengers said authorities in San Diego and Yolo County interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon but did not decide whether states have a right to ban openly carrying guns. Supreme Court justices did not explain why they refused to hear the challenge, allowing the lower court ruling to stand.

Although the National Rifle Association maintains that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, public security is best left in the hands of trained professionals, not gun-toting bystanders. The possibility for tragic mishaps only grows when police have trouble distinguishing

Excerpt from:

Editorial: Courts uphold common-sense limits to Second Amendments rights. - STLtoday.com

First Amendment Issues in the News – Legal Reader (blog)

Posted on by

There have been a number of First Amendment issues in the news recently. Some are rehashes of the same old battles, and others give us more to chew on.

Remember that one about the Christian baker and the gay wedding cake? Yep, thats one of the First Amendment issues coming around again. This fall, newly topped up with conservative darling Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal of theColorado case. Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission concerns Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a cake for the wedding reception being held by David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Mullins and Craig were legally married in Massachusetts in 2012.

Phillips claims that baking the cake would violate his free exercise of religion and would also constitute coerced speech. Lower courts have consistently held that baking a cake would do neither of these, but is considered to be illegal discrimination due to the couples sexual orientation. This last bit is of key importance when only 22 states have anti-discrimination laws that extend protection to gay people. On one hand, the cake fight is bigger than it first appears: its a proxy in the culture war, and will have an outsized impact on the way some civil rights issues are decided in the future. On the other hand, if baking a cake means that the baker is actually endorsing or taking part in a same-sex union, perhaps gun shop owners will one day be considered to have participated in any crimes committed with the guns they sold. Hey, its possible, right?

Next in the series of First Amendment issues is the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision. The Supremes came down on the side of Trinity Lutheran, the church whose ministry involved running a daycare and playground for children. Amazingly, seven of nine justices agreed (for differing reasons) that public funds could not be denied to a church simply because it has a religious mission. Although some majority-opinion justices used language meant to limit the scope of their decision, theidea that governments must provide resources directly to a religious organization has implications for many future policy fights sure to arise, including funding of faith-based education. However, if funds provided to beef up a church playground are not considered fungible in the context of the Establishment clause, perhaps similarly non-fungible funds can be provided for Planned Parenthoods public health mission, free from any involvement with the Hyde Amendment.

Its not just the Supreme Court ruling on recent First Amendment issues. A Montana state court recently decided that the USDAs checkoff program constituted a form of coerced speech, paid for by the states independent cattle ranchers. Checkoff programs are tiny, mandatory taxes paid by producers of certain agricultural commodities. These funds go towards marketing efforts that supposedly benefit the producers of that commodity. This is where ad campaigns like Got Milk? or Beef: Its Whats For Dinner come from. In this case, the Montana Beef Council used checkoff money to partially fund a commercial claiming that Wendys fast food hamburgers are made using North American beef. American ranchers rankled at having to pay to promote Canadian and Mexican beef exports. As a result, the ranchers must still pay the dollar-per-head checkoff, but non-governmental organizations will only receive a portion of the proceeds from ranchers who opt in.

One of the First Amendment issues before Congress is whether or not churches should be able to back political candidates while also retaining their tax-exempt status. House Republicans amended a spending bill to de-fund IRS efforts at enforcing the Johnson Amendment, originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954. While priests and pastors have always been free, as private citizens, to endorse any political position they like, this would potentially turn the pulpit itself into your Facebook feed, minus the cat pictures. Interestingly, non-Christian houses of worship, such as mosques and synagogues, dont seem to be included in the conservative liberalization effort.

Finally, lest we mistake First Amendment issues as being about the rights of all Americans to express their sincerely held beliefs, we get to those whose free speech matters most: the wealthy. Since the landmark Citizens United decision in 2010, money has been even more equated with speech than ever before. Those with wallets full of words wasted no time making sure that their shouting could be heard over those who could afford only humble whispers. In this case, our loudest citizens are insisting that an agenda that benefits them at the cost of most of the rest of us be passed post haste, or the checkbooks would close and perhaps the Republicans would lose their majority in Congress in the next election. One can only hope.

Related: Fungibility Key in Trinity Lutheran Case

Read the original post:

First Amendment Issues in the News - Legal Reader (blog)

STASI: Even Trump can’t body-slam the First Amendment – New York Daily News

Posted on by

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Tuesday, July 4, 2017, 2:05 PM

On the verge of Independence Day, President Trump took time out from his busy schedule of press suppression and destruction of the First Amendment to exercise his right of free speech for himself.

He posted what appears to be a slightly altered video created originally by extreme Reddit user/bigot HanA------Solo who has a history of posting racist, violence-laden filth.

Until our President tweeted out the altered WWE video, HanA------Solo had been fairly obscure, rutting around on the darkest of fringes with hateful posts on his subreddit feed filled with violence, racism and bigotry of every kind.

Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League CEO, called him out as an individual who "traffics in online hatred and at times violent rhetoric, has created an image labeling CNN journalists with Stars of David and has written about stabbing Muslims among other violent rhetoric."

Celebrities slam President Trumps CNN WrestleMania tweet

Now the creep is a celeb among the hateful, all thanks to Donald Trump and thanks to freedom of speech.

For guys including the President who hate free speech, they certainly know how to use it to their advantage.

Shortly, Trump will head to Hamburg for the G20 where he'll meet with his friend/not friend Vlad the Impaler Putin where he can get some tips from a real pro. Putin is a master at dismantling the independent media, jailing freethinkers, and when all else fails, poisoning critics.

We don't do that. Yet.

Reddit troll takes credit for altered gif of Trump-CNN brawl

Recently I gave a speech sponsored by the Civil Liberties Union about how in 1733, a German immigrant named John Peter Zenger printed a publication titled The New York Journal. He was sued for libel for daring to criticize abusive, corrupt royal governor William Cosby. (No, not that Bill Cosby.)

Zenger's wife kept printing the paper anyway and Andrew Hamilton signed on as Zenger's lawyer.

Even though it was against the law at the time to print anti-government publications, he was found not guilty. Thus began the quest for America's most important freedom the First Amendment, which we are NOW, after 228 years, truly in danger of losing.

That's why the First Amendment freedom of the press, speech, religion, assembly and the right to petition the government comes first before all others.

Trump tweets edited clip of himself at WrestleMania punching CNN

The President is now at war with the press despite declaring "I love the First Amendment! Nobody loves it better than me." If you remember, he tweeted this out just before arbitrarily barring several publications from the daily White House press briefings and even trying to get away with making the use of video verboten.

Declaring his love of the First Amendment by warring against it is as dumb as Gov. Christie lying that he didn't get any sun on the beach that was closed to taxpayers before getting busted.

How can any American, no matter how far to the right, think attempted suppression of the press is OK? It's never OK to bar or try to suppress information in a free society. It's what our ancestors died for. It's what we should at least be willing to fight for.

When it comes to this, our most important freedom, Trump is nothing more than Putin with a shirt on.

ADL slams Reddit troll behind CNN-Trump clip for racist comments

And it's not funny. Anymore.

Read this article:

STASI: Even Trump can't body-slam the First Amendment - New York Daily News

Facebook Challenges Gag Order, Cited First Amendment Rights – Legal Reader (blog)

Posted on by

A gag order was recently issued by a U.S. court preventing Facebook from commenting about three government search warrants issued over a three-month period. The warrants were accompanied by a nondisclosure order from a District of Columbia Superior Court judge which barred the company from notifying its users about the warrants before Facebook agreed to comply. Facebook responded, challenging the order. The company cited the First Amendment and the right to freedom of speech.

Officials say that have a right to notify the three users about the warrants seeking their communication and information. They claim the users should have a fair opportunity to object to such searches. The company released the following statement, We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the governments refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events.

The underlying premise of the governments investigation is still not clear. However, its been speculated that it is affiliated with protesting attempts at the Donald Trump inauguration in which 200 people were taken into custody. The warrants are tied to potential felony charges, and neither the governments investigation nor its interest in Facebook user information was secret, according to the social media king.

Facebook receives thousands of requests from the government for user date annually and complies without question. However, in this particular case, the company cited it has decided to challenge the order because it believes in the protection of the First Amendment. Those who agree with Facebooks stance say that the gag order relies on outdated laws. In April, a local judge in Washington denied Facebooks request to remove it, according to court records, but Facebook cited this was unconstitutional and has appealed the original judgment. In a June 14th order, a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled that an unsealed notice about the case could be provided to any groups that Facebook deems necessary and briefs in support of Facebook were due by June 30th. The government can only insulate its actions from public scrutiny in this way in the rarest circumstances, which likely do not apply here, said attorney Andrew Crocker.

The Constitution can offer adequate protection only if the targets of seemingly overbroad warrants, such as those at issue here, know their rights are under threat, American Civil Liberties Union attorneys and Public Citizen Litigation Group wrote. Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia added that the scope of the warrants served on Facebook is like a warrant telling officers to seize all the papers and photographs in someones home, so prosecutors can peruse them at leisure looking for evidence. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants must particularly describ[e] the things to be seized a requirement that was designed to prohibit just such general warrants.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals the highest court in Washington for local matters is scheduled to hear the case sometime in September.

Facebook challenges US gag order, claiming free speech

Facebook fights U.S. gag order that it says chills free speech

Read this article:

Facebook Challenges Gag Order, Cited First Amendment Rights - Legal Reader (blog)

BRIEF-ATyr pharma enters into first amendment to loan and security agreement – Reuters

Posted on by

July 5 ATyr Pharma Inc-

* ATyr Pharma says on june 30, entered into first amendment to loan and security agreement with silicon valley bank and solar capital ltd - SEC filing

* ATyr Pharma -amendment provides up to $5.0 million in second tranche of term loans may be drawn down at any time before earlier of June 30, or event of default

* ATyr Pharma - amendment provides additional $5 million in third tranche of term loans may be drawn down at any time after june 30, before earlier of Dec 31, 2017

* ATyr Pharma Inc- in connection with loan amendment, second tranche of $5.0 million was funded on June 30, 2017 Source text: (bit.ly/2sNxzaX) Further company coverage:

NEW YORK, July 5 U.S. bank regulators disclosed on Wednesday how eight of the nations largest banks would wind themselves down in the face of collapse and gave American International Group Inc (AIG) and Prudential Financial Inc an extra year to submit their doomsday plans.

* Renewable Energy Group statement on proposed renewable volume obligations

Read this article:

BRIEF-ATyr pharma enters into first amendment to loan and security agreement - Reuters

David Harsanyi: Fighting for the First Amendment, not against gay marriage – The Union Leader

Posted on by

By DAVID HARSANYI July 04. 2017 11:20PM Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who refused to create a specialty wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012. The stories dominating coverage distort the publics understanding of the case.

No matter how many times people repeat it, the case isnt about discrimination or challenging gay marriage. But when the news first broke, USA Today, for example, tweeted, The Supreme Court has agreed to reopen the national debate over same-sex marriage. The headline (and story) on the website was worse; it read, Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddings. Others similarly framed the case.

There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesnt challenge the issue of same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasnt even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.

A person with only passing interest in this case might be led to believe that Phillips is fighting to hang a No Gays Allowed sign in his shop. In truth, he never refused to serve a gay couple. He didnt even really refuse to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake. They could have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake for a gay wedding. Phillips didnt query about anyones sexual orientation. It was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that took it upon itself to peer into Phillips soul, indict him and destroy his business over a thought crime.

Like many other bakers, florists, photographers, and musicians and millions of other Christians Phillips holds genuine longstanding religious convictions. If Mullins and Craig had demanded that Phillips create an erotic-themed cake, the baker would have similarly refused for religious reasons, just as he had with other costumers. If a couple had asked him to design a specialty cake that read Congrats on the abortion, Jenny! Im certain he would have refused them as well, even though abortions are legal. Its not the people; its the message.

In its tortured decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals admitted as much, contending that while Phillips didnt overtly discriminate against the couple, the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craigs and Mullins sexual orientation, so it could divine his real intentions.

In other words, the threshold for denying religious liberty and free expression is the presence of advocacy or a political opinion that conflates with faith. The court has effectively tasked itself with determining when religion is allowed to matter to you. Or, in other words, if SCOTUS upholds the lower court ruling, it will empower unelected civil rights commissions which are typically stacked with hard-left authoritarians to decide when your religious actions are appropriate.

How could any honest person believe this was the Constitutions intent? There was a time, Im told, when the state wouldnt substantially burden religious exercise and would use the least restrictive means to further compelling interests. Today, the state can substantially burden a Christian because hes hurt the wrong persons feelings.

Judging from the emails and social media reactions Ive gotten regarding this case, people are not only instinctively antagonistic because of the players involved, but also because they dont understand the facts. In this era of identity politics, some have been programed to reflexively side with the person making accusations of status-based discrimination, all in an effort to empower the state to coerce a minority of people to see the world their way.

Well, not all people. In 2014, a Christian activist named William Jack went to a Colorado bakery and requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible, one to be decorated with the Bible verses God hates sin. Psalm 45:7 and Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22, and the other cake to be decorated with another passage. The bakery refused. Even though Christians are a protected group, the Colorado Civil Rights Division threw out the case. The American Civil Liberties Union called the passages obscenities. I guess the Bible doesnt correlate closely enough with a Christians identity.

Or perhaps weve finally established a state religion in this country: Its run on the dogma of social justice.

.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist.

Business Politics Social issues Courts Oped

Read more:

David Harsanyi: Fighting for the First Amendment, not against gay marriage - The Union Leader

Darknet 101: Your guide to the badlands of the internet – CNET – CNET

Posted on by

Andrew Brookes/Getty Images

Hacked login details. Cybersecurity exploits for hire. Drugs, guns and ammo. If there's something shady going on online, chances are it's happening on the darknet.

When Target was hacked in 2013, customer card details turned up on darknet marketplaces. Hackers have tried to do the same with Yahoo login credentials, and details of O2 phone network customers in the UK.

You'll also find cybercriminals selling security exploits. Ransomware, anyone?

Everything's for sale if you look in the right place. And with the rise of bitcoin, the "currency of choice" on the darknet, virtually anonymous payments are easier than ever.

Just this week in Australia, a news investigation revealed that an anonymous darknet user has offered up access to the Medicare records of "any Australian" for just 0.0089 bitcoin ($22, AU$30, 18).

That's not to mention the things you really don't want to see. Europol says the darknet and other peer-to-peer networks are still the "main platform" for sharing child abuse material.

So for those of us used to opening Chrome or Safari to get online, the darknet is an entirely different beast. How does it work? How is it different from the "surface web" that we all know? And what do you need to know ahead of time, should you choose to wade in?

The first thing to remember: The darknet is not the same as the "deep web."

The deep web refers to any part of the internet that isn't discoverable by a search engine. But that doesn't mean it's suspicious -- there are plenty of sites you visit in your day-to-day browsing that fall into this category.

When you log in to internet banking, you've navigated to a specific location online, but one that's not served up in Google results. The same goes for the different pages that pop up in webmail services, like Gmail, or academic databases on a university network.

It's hard to estimate just how big the deep web is, but the commonly cited research (albeit from 2001) puts the deep web at 400 to 550 times the size of the "surface web."

If the surface web is the tip of the iceberg and the deep web is what's below the water, then the darknet is what you'll find deep in the blackest waters below. The darknet is the network itself, whereas the dark web is the content that is served up on these networks.

This is where you'll find the kind of marketplaces that ply their trade in illicit wares -- what security researcher Brian Krebs calls the "hidden crime bazaars that can only be accessed through special software that obscures one's true location online."

The UN noted last month that although drug trafficking over the darknet is relatively modest, drug transactions increased 50 percent annually from September 2013 to January 2016. And in early 2016, then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch warned that some gun sales were shifting to the dark web to stay outside the reach of regulations.

Anonymity is the key here. Whistleblowers, activists and political dissidents certainly have good reason to obscure their online location and post with anonymity on the deep web and the darknet, but that level of secrecy is also sought by criminals.

This isn't just a matter of heading to "darknet.com" and having a snoop -- you'll need specific software and a dedicated browser. The Tor software (and its dedicated Tor Browser) is probably the most famous of these, though there are others, including I2P and Freenet.

Using software originally known as The Onion Router (think layers and layers of encryption), Tor secures traffic by routing it through a network of secure relays that anonymize traffic. These relays are run by volunteers around the world who donate their server bandwidth.

Think of it as a network of safe houses: You travel through underground tunnels that run along the lines of the streets above, and you pop out where you want using safe houses donated by fellow network users.

But with links on the darknet typically just alphanumeric strings of nonsense (think kwyjibo.onion) it can be very hard to know what you're getting.

It's important to remember that Tor isn't illegal software, just as torrenting software doesn't do anything illegal until you use it for sharing pirated movies. Tor says plenty of"normal people" use its service, as well as citizen journalists, whistleblowers, law enforcement agencies and, according toHuman Rights Watch, Chinese dissidents. Tor estimates that onlyabout 4 percent of trafficover its network is for hidden services (or dark web content); the rest is people accessing regular internet sites with greater anonymity.

Still, wherever you have anonymous traffic on hidden networks, the criminal activity will follow.

It's the darknet after all -- be careful what you click for.

Tech Culture: From film and television to social media and games, here's your place for the lighter side of tech.

Batteries Not Included: The CNET team shares experiences that remind us why tech stuff is cool.

Originally posted here:

Darknet 101: Your guide to the badlands of the internet - CNET - CNET

In Reporting on North Korea, Tech Helps Break Through Secrecy – New York Times

Posted on by

But there is a problem.

South Korea blocks its people, or anyone using the internet in the country, from accessing North Korean websites. If you try to open the K.C.N.A. website, a government warning pops up. Its the same warning the government issues to internet users when it restricts access to pornographic materials online.

I use the Tor browser to circumvent the government firewall. Web pages open slower on Tor than on Chrome and other regular browsers. Still, it's a godsend for journalists reporting on North Korea from the South, where Cold War-era fears still drive the local government to censor the internet.

Whats your favorite tech tool for doing your job?

I use Evernote to help organize my life as a journalist.

With a few clicks, you can clip a news article, commentary, analyst paper, PDF file, video link and other contents you find on the web and want to save for a later reference, and store them in a designated online notebook. I find this Web Clipper function particularly useful when researching a certain topic, say North Koreas market reforms, for weeks or longer; I create a North Korea Economy notebook and save related contents there for easy access.

What is Samsungs influence on South Korea, since the tech companys revenue accounts for a significant portion of the countrys gross domestic product?

Samsung is the biggest among the chaebol, a handful of family-run conglomerates that have dominated the South Korean economy for decades. The countrys top 10 chaebol generate the equivalent of more than 80 percent of the countrys G.D.P. Samsungs flagship company, Samsung Electronics, alone is responsible for 20 percent of the countrys exports.

One cant talk about how well or badly South Koreas economy is doing without talking about Samsung. Samsung has a pervasive presence in the country. It produces best-selling smartphones, TV sets and refrigerators. It runs insurance, shipbuilding and construction companies, to just name a few of its dozens of affiliates. If she likes, a South Korean can live in a Republic of Samsung: She can get married and honeymoon in Samsung hotels; have her baby delivered in a Samsung hospital; take him to a Samsung amusement park; send him to a Samsung university; and stock her Samsung apartment with Samsung home appliances bought with a Samsung credit card.

But the name Samsung also has a darker side among Koreans. Six of the 10 top chaebol leaders, including Samsungs chairman, Lee Kun-hee, have been convicted of white-collar crimes, including bribery, although they have never spent much time in jail. If Samsung symbolizes wealth and technological savvy, many Koreans also accuse the corporate behemoth of corruption and excessive power.

Mr. Lees son, Samsungs vice chairman, Lee Jae-yong, who has been running the conglomerate while his father remains bedridden after a stroke, is now under arrest and on trial on charges of bribing Park Geun-hye, the impeached and ousted former president of South Korea.

How does Samsung affect the way you live and work?

I use only three Samsung products in my office a Samsung TV set, a Samsung fax/printer and the Samsung monitor for my Dell desktop though many of the tech products around me at home and in my office may contain Samsung components, like computer chips.

I used to use a Samsung Galaxy Note smartphone until I switched to an iPhone three years ago. I like my iPhone, but I have a major complaint about it: It doesnt allow you to record your phone conversations. What if a spokesman calls you back and dictates a statement while you are driving a car or standing in a crowded subway car? With my old Samsung phone, I could just tap the screen a couple times to record the conversation. You cant do that with an iPhone.

Recording phone conversations is legal in South Korea, and journalists and others routinely do it. Samsung and others market smartphones with a built-in phone-recording function. Apple doesnt. I am thinking seriously of switching back to an Android phone when I retire my iPhone.

Beyond your job, what tech product are you obsessed with in your daily life?

Im not savvy with tech products. I have my desktop, my company-issued MacBook Air and my iPhone. Thats about all the tech hardware I use. Online, though, I use the Naver and Daum maps all the time when I travel and go to an appointment. They are like Google maps, but more convenient to use in South Korea. Naver and Daum are the countrys two biggest web portals and search engines. Google holds only a minor share in the search engine market of South Korea.

Kakao Talk, the countrys most widely used messenger app, is a must-have for anyone who wants to stay connected in South Korea. Government spokesmen send news releases and media notices through Kakao Talk. Reporters put in queries through Kakao Talk.

I used to use my Kindle a lot, but not anymore. I have switched back to paper books. But Kindle is still very convenient when I am traveling and want to keep my bag light.

Continue reading here:

In Reporting on North Korea, Tech Helps Break Through Secrecy - New York Times

How To Search The Deep Web Safely – Gizmodo Australia

Posted on by

The deep web and its inner recess, the dark web those less well-trodden parts of the internet beyond the reach of Google and Bing are not for the faint-hearted or untrained. With the right tools, however, there's little to fear and plenty to discover. Here's how you can start exploring the deep web without having to worry about your digital well-being.

There are a few ways to approach this, but we're going to focus on one of the most straightforward and secure for simplicity's sake. We're going to be using Tails OS, a bootable operating system that includes everything you need to get down to those hidden parts of the web.

If you're still unclear about what the deep web is, it's any part of the internet that's not indexed by search engines anywhere you can't get from just clicking links. A large part of the deep web is made up of .onion sites (like the infamous Silk Road), which use a special top-level domain only reachable by a special browser called Tor. Technically, the dark web is a more illicit subsection of the deep web, though the terms are often confused.

For the curious or privacy-conscious internet explorer, it's worth checking out to see what lies beyond the internet we interact with on a day to day basis. But please note: you should be extra careful when clicking links on the deep web as some can lead to illegal sites. Browse at your own risk.

Fortunately Tails has an installation wizard that guides you step-by-step through the process of setting up the software if you want to create a bootable USB copy of Tails (which we do) then you need a Windows machine and two 4GB+ USB sticks (the first is for an "intermediary" version of the OS).

You're also going to require Firefox, the Tor Browser or a BitTorrent client in order to verify the initial download and confirm it is what it says it is. On top of that you need a Universal USB Installer utility, which the installation wizard directs you to, which will take care of creating the first USB stick using your downloaded Tails ISO.

After that's done, boot from this newly created drive to configure the second one. This official guide takes you carefully through the process. Use the Install by cloning option in the Tails Installer to create your second USB stick, which includes some security enhancements and extras not built into the first one.

Finally, remove the first USB stick, keep the second in place, and boot from it. You're now ready to start venturing out into the deep web. If you run into trouble (and we hit one or two obstacles along the way), then a general web search for your issue or the official Tails support portal should get you moving again.

The Tor Browser is your gateway into the dark web you can actually use it on Mac and Windows too, but Tails OS adds an extra few layers of security, and comes with Tor included. The browser is based on Firefox, so you shouldn't have many problems finding your way around, and will open the Tails OS homepage by default.

As you might expect, browsing the deep web isn't quite as simple as clicking on a few links or searching Google. The best way in is through 'hidden' wikis like this one (note you won't be able to click through on any onion links without the Tor browser) and various others you can find via Reddit or with some clever web searching on sites like DuckDuckGo.

Of course the whole point of the deep web is that casual internet users can't simply fire up Google or read a guide like this to get started easily so finding working, up-to-date links and directories can take some time. Forums, plenty of patience, and occasionally the Torch search engine are your best bets for finding a way into new communities.

The deep web has a reputation for shady activity, but it's also a place for whistleblowing, bitcoin exchanges, and political discussion away from the glare of the public internet. It's changed a lot in recent years as security agencies have become more aware of its presence, and it will continue to evolve in the future.

The Tor browser protects you by routing your traffic through various different IP locations (and you'll probably notice your web connection slows down a lot as a result).

And as we've already mentioned, Tails OS includes extra security features like built-in encryption, and because you're running it on a USB stick you really are leaving no trace. Tails itself stands for The Amnesiac Incognito Live System, which just about sums up why it's one of the best options for some deep web browsing.

Don't compromise that security and anonymity by giving away personal details, including email addresses and so on, and keep downloading to a minimum. Once you've setup Tails, it's generally common sense but if you're up to something illegal, you can't rely on these security measures to protect you.

As for whether using Tor will get you in trouble with the authorities on its own, it largely depends where in the world you live and what you're doing with it, but it's worth bearing in mind that nothing is ever 100 per cent anonymous and secure. For the most paranoid, there's always the option of tape over the webcam but sometimes even that might not be enough.

[Header image: Amaze646/Shutterstock.com]

Please log in or register to gain access to this feature.

An alarming report has revealed the private Medicare card details of any Australian are available to buy via "The Medicare Machine" - a darknet vendor exploiting an alleged vulnerability in the government agency which the seller hopes is "here to stay".

Like most Jalops, I regularly wake up in the middle of the night in a panic, drenched in sweat, screaming the phrase "save the manuals." It's an issue that I've been working on with my therapist for months, but I think I've finally cracked it -- I'm now done worrying about manuals going extinct.

View original post here:

How To Search The Deep Web Safely - Gizmodo Australia

Burleson man convicted of accessing child porn from dark website – Fort Worth Star Telegram

Posted on by
Burleson man convicted of accessing child porn from dark website
Fort Worth Star Telegram
Agents discovered more than 800 images of child pornography on one computer and evidence that the Tor browser had been installed, deleted and then reinstalled on another computer assigned to Pawlak. The jury heard testimony that it appeared that ...

and more »

Go here to see the original:

Burleson man convicted of accessing child porn from dark website - Fort Worth Star Telegram

How two countries helped drive the recent rise in cryptocurrency prices – TechCrunch

Posted on by

Hugh Harsono is a former financial analyst currently serving as a U.S. Army Officer.

Digital currency prices have soared recently, with reports from the past few months showing enormous valuation increases for currencies across the board.

Bitcoin, Ripple, and Ethereum have all experienced exponential growth, with Bitcoin prices rising to $2,588, Ripple reaching a market cap of nearly $10 billion, and Ethereum growing to a total market cap of over $20 billion.

With supply and demand for digital currencies extremely high in both Japan and China, it is no surprise as to why these two countries are helping to fuel the rise in cryptocurrency prices.

Ability to Withdraw in China?

With access to cheap hardware and electricity, China is the prime breeding ground for mining cryptocurencies, with huge mining pools run by exchanges such as BTCC accounting for more than 60% of the bitcoin networks collective hashrate.

However, the beginning of 2017 saw a governmental crackdown of Chinese-based digital currency exchanges, causing a suspension in all withdrawals, causing the market to suffer heavily with China being one of the top bitcoin markets in terms of trading volume.

Recently, Caixin reported potential changes in the governmental regulatory framework to allow withdrawals last month, specifically mentioning top exchanges OKcoin, Huobi, and BTCC. This potential good news has increased consumer confidence in cryptocurrencies, contributing to their associated rise in value.

Japan: Stepping in to Fill the Chinese Void

With cryptocurrency liquidity in China experienced stagnation earlier this year, the Japanese bitcoin market exploded, with demand reaching new heights.

Previously, Japan represented barely 1% of total bitcoin trading volume, but in recent months estimates put this number as high as 6%, with Japan accounting for nearly 55% of total trade volume on some trading days. This increase in JPY bitcoin trading due to the Chinese inability to liquidate has fueled growth in the digital currency market globally.

Solid Alternative Compared to Government Policy

In China, the tightly-controlled yuan is another reason why cryptocurrency prices have experienced their unprecedented rise in value. The Chinese government has total control over the yuans valuation, traditionally devaluing the yuan to give itself an international trade advantage when the government saw fit.

With the growing amount of private independent wealth in China, cryptocurrency has become viable as an alternative asset class. And cryptocurrencies are being seen as more accessible, less volatile, and increasingly stable, contributing to their recent growth in value.

Meanwhile, the Bank of Japans policy of quantitative easing has resulted in very low, and sometimes even negative interest rates, also caused digital currency values to rise.

The Japanese governments QE policy, intended to spur economic growth, has resulted in significant deflation for the yen, causing a similar decrease in investor confidence in this currency. With no end in sight for this form of Japanese monetary policy, digital currencies have and are currently being used as an alternative asset class, driving their rise in value.

Virtual currencies are quickly being seen as a better asset class by local investors, who fear the volatility of government interference in their specific economies.

Institutional Acceptance of Digital Currency

The rise in digital currency values can also be attributed to institutional acceptance of cryptocurrencies. The recent conclusion of the Global Blockchain Financial Summit in Hangzhou saw intense interest from reputable institutions like Peking University, which is creating an Ethereum center to work on direct application use and protocol improvements in China.

The Royal Chinese Mint, a downtrace unit of the Peoples Bank of China (PBoC) dedicated to its electronic banking mission, has even actively promoted the application of blockchain technology, going as far as to allocate resources and developers in experimentation to digitize the yuan.

In Japan, multiple large institutions are now beginning to accept digital currency as a transactional entity, validating its use to the Japanese population as a whole. On the market front,bitFlyer, Japans largest exchange, is currently backed by all three of Japans megabanks: MUFJ, Mizuho, and SMBC.

On the consumer/retail side, influential electronics retailer Bic Camera has partnered with bitFlyer to begin acceptance of bitcoin at its retail locations. Additionally, Recruit Lifestyle, part of HR conglomerate Recruit Holdings, reported a new partnership with exchange Coincheck to use as part of a point-of-sale implementation program. The acceptance of digital currencies by these reputable groups have helped fuel confidence in digital currencies for daily transactions by the Japanese.

This institutional acceptance of digital currencies by powerful organizations in both China and Japan have allowed cryptocurrencies values to rise as a whole.

Governmental Acceptance of Cryptocurrency

It is no secret that the Chinese government has taken steps to regulate digital currency transactions, with their scrutiny and initiatives causing a drop in bitcoin prices to around $1,000 just several months ago.

However, the very fact that the PBoC is seeking to regulate this industry simply proves how viable it is as a legitimate transaction entity, with the Chinese government even taking steps to build their own digital currency.

With the announcement of potential withdrawals of bitcoin on the horizon, the PBoC have just completed a trial run of their own digital currency based on blockchain technology, with participation from major institutions such as the Bank of China and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, as well as Chinas first online bank WeBank.

The Japanese government has also taken huge steps in the acceptance of digital currencies as legal forms of tender, with Japan legally classifying bitcoin as a form of payment just on April 1st.

Ahead of China, Japan has already begun licensure procedures for digital currency exchanges, to be operated under the watchful eye of the governments Financial Services Agency, with market leaders such as bitFlyer already announcing plans to apply for said license, further driving investor confidence in the Japanese market and beyond.

Additionally, the Japanese government announced that the sale of virtual currency under the new Fund Settlement Law would be exempt from the Japanese Consumption Tax (8%), further driving bitcoin growth as an investment vehicle.

The acceptance of virtual currencies by both the Chinese and Japanese governments are driving cryptocurrency growth, with China on the cusp of establishing its own currency, and Japan regulating bitcoin as true legal payment.

Read more:

How two countries helped drive the recent rise in cryptocurrency prices - TechCrunch

The Hive Project Debuts New Cryptocurrency-Based Invoice Financing Platform – Crowdfund Insider

Posted on by

The Hive Project announced last week the launch of its cryptocurrency-based invoice financing platform. This news comes just days before the company launched its ICO. The company boasts itself as the first cryptocurrency invoice financing platform. It notably provides new financial liquidity to small businesses by leveraging blockchain technology and giving them a range of cryptocurrency-based financing options.

Hive (HVE) uses blockchain (distributed ledger) technology to give every issued invoice a unique fingerprint. This enables businesses to automate the invoicing process and make it available to the general public. We create a central data room for all invoices, with a record kept of the issuer, owner and payer. Invoices can therefore be offered to the market for trading. This will rapidly increase the liquidity available to small businesses and create a central database of invoices available for scoring and auditing. In addition to bridging the liquidity gap for small businesses, the technology provided by Hive will help credit checks to be made on companies and facilitate rapid and real-time auditing.

Speaking about The Hive Projects goals,Jure Soklic, CEO and co-founder, reportedly stated:

We want to help small businesses solve their liquidity issues by leveraging blockchain technology to provide financing options previously only available to large companies. Our platform will dramatically streamline invoice issuance and settlement processes, optimizing small and medium-enterprises ability to access liquidity for day-to-day operations and to finance expansion.

Richard Titus, Advisor to Hive Project, added:

The Hive Project helps small businesses automate invoicing and payments, delivering the benefits of blockchain innovation to commercial entities previously deprived of ready access to finances, Hive Projects end state, a marketplace with advanced trading analytics for peer-to-peer lending, will rapidly increase the liquidity available to small businesses and expand todays often mercenary ecosystem of factoring and lending.

The Hive Project is currently seeking to secure initial capital of BTC 2,000 through its crowd sale, which is scheduled to run for the next six weeks.

. Bookmark the

.

Read the original:

The Hive Project Debuts New Cryptocurrency-Based Invoice Financing Platform - Crowdfund Insider