Shadow Brokers hike prices for stolen NSA exploits, threaten to out ex-Uncle Sam hacker – The Register

Posted on by

The Shadow Brokers is once again trying to sell yet more stolen NSA cyber-weapons, raising the asking price in the process. And the gang has threatened to out one of the US spy agency's ex-operatives that it claims hacked Chinese targets.

In the now-traditional broken English statement, the smug miscreants said they had so many punters throwing money at them for their June exploit sale that they are jacking up their prices. If you want to get hold of the forthcoming July batch, it'll set you back 200 ZEC (Zcash) ($65,000) or 1,000 XMR (Monero) ($46,000), which is a rather bizarre pricing policy and double the amount the crew were charging before.

What's also slightly bizarre is that there has been, seemingly, zero fallout from that sale last month, and no evidence anyone paid up or got any code.

"Another global cyber attack is fitting end for first month of theshadowbrokers dump service," it said. "There is much theshadowbrokers can be saying about this but what is point and having not already being said?"

That's referring to this week's Petya/NotPetya outbreak and last month's WannaCry drama: both of these strains of malware used NSA exploits from the Shadow Brokers' April leak to attack Windows PCs around the world. The group, which is thought to be linked to Russian intelligence, claims the cyber-weapons it is now flogging off were nicked from the Equation Group, which is understood to be a moniker for an NSA hacking team.

In addition to its very expensive exploit-of-the-month club, the group is offering a VIP service, where it will offer specific exploits that people ask for. This doesn't come cheap however: the entry price is 400 ZEC ($131,000) and the group says "VIP Service is no guarantee of future good or services, negotiation for those is being separate."

In its latest screed the Shadow Brokers also take issue with someone they refer to as the "Doctor," who isn't a time lord but a hacker the group claims was working for the Equation Group. The brokers are apparently miffed that this person has been tweeting bad things about them.

"TheShadowBrokers is thinking 'doctor' person is former EquationGroup developer who built many tools and hacked organization in China. TheShadowBrokers is thinking 'doctor' person is co-founder of new security company and is having much venture capital," they said.

"TheShadowBrokers is hoping 'doctor' person is deciding to subscribe to dump service in July. If theshadowbrokers is not seeing subscription payment with corporate email address of doctor@newsecuritycompany.com then theshadowbrokers might be taking tweets personally and dumping data of 'doctor' person's hacks of China with real id and security company name."

While not identifying the doctor as yet, one man thinks it might be him they are referring to. Daniel Wolfford, a specialist working for Middle Eastern mobile security firm DarkMatter, denied that he was involved in the Equation Group and does only defensive hacking.

The price increase is bad news for white-hat security researchers, who had been planning to crowdfund buying up Shadow Broker exploits and fix them. Then again, the group could just dump the exploits on the market for free, as they have done in the past.

View original post here:

Shadow Brokers hike prices for stolen NSA exploits, threaten to out ex-Uncle Sam hacker - The Register

Posted in NSA

Why does the U.S. Constitution spend so much time protecting … – Michigan State University Extension

Posted on by

Why does the U.S. Constitution spend so much time protecting criminals? Part 1 The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments to the Constitution are to protect those accused of crimes. Part 1 will explore the fourth and fifth amendments.

Posted on June 29, 2017 by Darren Bagley, Michigan State University Extension

The first amendment (freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly) and the second amendment (right to bear arms) usually get the most attention in the media. The fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution are to protect those accused of crimes. That is half of the Bill of Rights! Why do you think so many amendments of the Bill of Rights are to protect those accused of crimes? Why do they get so little attention today?

The following questions are meant to have a good discussion with youth about personal rights. This activity can be done within a family, as part of school activities, a 4-H club or with any group working with young people. Encourage a robust dialogue about these issues, and encourage young people to find data to back up their opinions. During the discussion, try to limit interjecting your own opinions and let the youth discuss it among themselves.

How do you think the early times of the United States were different for criminals or those accused of crimes compared to today? How do you think the law enforcement and court systems was different? Do you think the relevance of these rights have changed over time?

Have you ever been accused of something? How does that feel? Have you ever been accused of something you didnt do?

The fourth amendment states, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A simplified summary of this might be, The police cant look through your stuff without a pretty good reason.

Why do you think this amendment exists? Some people interpret this amendment as a right to privacy. Do you think the amendment should cover electronic information and communication? If you arent doing anything wrong, what do you have to be afraid of?

When should the government have a right to search your property? Do you think this amendment ever hinders law enforcements ability to catch criminals?

The fifth amendment states, No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A simplified summary of this might be, For big crimes, a Grand Jury has to determine if you will go on trial. You cant be put on trial twice for the same thing. You dont have to say anything bad about yourself if you dont want to.

Pleading the fifth is often used to say you dont have to talk when you believe something might incriminate you. Why do you think this is in our Constitution? This amendment is also where the Miranda Rights come from; the famous, You have the right to remain silent.

Do you think those being arrested understand what that means during an intense police situation?

We will continue this Why does the U.S. Constitution spend so much time protecting criminals? Part 2.

Hopefully these questions will get some good discussion going about personal rights. If you have some great ideas, share them with your local county, city or township, or your state or federal legislators.

To learn about the positive impact of Michigan 4-H youthleadership, citizenship and serviceandglobal and cultural education programs, read our 2016 Impact Report: Developing Civically Engaged Leaders. Additional impact reports, highlighting even more waysMichigan State University ExtensionandMichigan 4-Hhave positively impacted individuals and communities in 2016, can be downloaded from theMSUExtension website.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu. To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit http://www.msue.msu.edu/newsletters. To contact an expert in your area, visit http://expert.msue.msu.edu, or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

Here is the original post:

Why does the U.S. Constitution spend so much time protecting ... - Michigan State University Extension

Federal judge rules two deputies used excessive force – The Spokesman-Review

Posted on by

UPDATED: Thu., June 29, 2017, 9:05 p.m.

A man pulled from his home and arrested at gunpoint after two Spokane County Sheriffs deputies went to the wrong address achieved a partial victory this week when a federal judge ruled that the deputies violated his Fourth Amendment seizure rights and used excessive force.

Conner Griffith-Guerrero filed a federal civil lawsuit against Deputy Robert Brooke, Deputy Evan Logan and Spokane County in 2015, two years after the incident at his home on North Five Mile Road. Both sides filed summary judgment requests and this week U.S. District Court Judge Thomas O. Rice ruled that a portion of each request would be granted.

On Dec. 13, 2013, a resident on North Five Mile Road called 911 to report that there was a suspicious car parked at his neighbors house and his neighbor was in Arizona for the winter. He provided the address to the house, but deputies couldnt find the house and instead went to another home. They drew their guns and walked around the house, testing doors and shining their flashlights in windows, according to court documents.

Griffith-Guerrero was in the basement watching television when he saw the flashlights shining in. He said he was afraid he was about to be burglarized so he went upstairs and hit the front door to let whoever was outside know that someone was home, the lawsuit said. He went outside to look and saw someone with a gun. He screamed and ran into the house.

Brooke then identified himself and Griffith-Guerrero opened the door and was ordered outside the home and told to kneel in the front yard while he was handcuffed. He said that one of the deputies was pointing a gun at him the whole time, but the deputy testified in a deposition that he was merely holding his gun in the low ready position.

After it was determined that Griffith-Guerrero lived there, Brooke reportedly told him Youre lucky I didnt (expletive) shoot you, the lawsuit said.

According to court documents, Brooke received a shift counseling, described as the lowest level of discipline, for going to the wrong address.

Heather Yakely, the attorney representing Spokane County and the deputies, argued that the deputies had reasonable suspicion to approach the house and detain Griffith-Guerrero. The deputies were checking for signs of a burglary and Yakely argued there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment because deputies never crossed the threshold into the house.

Rice said the deputies did have the right to check the home for signs of a break-in, but ruled the deputies committed a warrantless seizure and used excessive force. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable, he wrote. It does not matter that the officers did not actually enter the house to make the arrest.

Ordering plaintiff out of his home is a categorical violation of his Fourth Amendment rights whether it is called a temporary detention or an arrest, it was a seizure.

Rice wrote that he found the defenses arguments that the deputies did not use excessive force unconvincing.

Pointing guns at plaintiff, ordering him out of his home at night and onto his knees in his own front yard to handcuff him was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, Rice wrote.

Rice did agree with Yakely on another issue. He ordered Spokane County dismissed from the lawsuit because Griffith-Guerrero didnt show that there was a pattern or practice of officers conducting illegal warrantless searches.

Rice ruled that Griffith-Guerreros claims of assault and battery, false arrest and imprisonment and negligence in the lawsuit can be pursued.

Read more:

Federal judge rules two deputies used excessive force - The Spokesman-Review

Terry’s Turn: The Second Amendment | Special Sections … – Sioux City Journal

Posted on by

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says I have the right to bear arms, but I really dont think it applies to me. I just have the feeling the Founding Fathers didnt have me in mind when it was approved in 1791. Let me explain.

As a teenager I had a couple of guns, a 410 shotgun and a .22 rifle. I was taught to shoot by my brother-in-law and a lot of his instruction included gun safety. He emphasized that guns are not toys. He took me to a shooting range not far from my home in North Omaha where I practiced my skill at hitting a target under his tutelage. I loved shooting at targets with the rifle and clay pigeons with the shotgun, but I never got interested in hunting. When I went into the Air Force after high school we had to quality on the rifle range and I did pretty well thanks to my brother-in-laws instructions.

When I got married I quickly discovered my new bride did not like guns and didnt want any in the house. That was OK since I couldnt afford a gun or ammo anyway. The no guns rule went on until all our kids had grown and left home. It was then I started a campaign to get a shotgun. I heard there was a skeet range nearby where I could shoot clay pigeons. My campaign to get a shotgun was simple but effective. It consisted of hours of, Please, please, please -- it seemed to work for the kids so I thought Id give it a try. After months of begging she finally relented.

After work one day I went to a local sporting goods store and bought a beautiful 12 gauge pump shotgun. I brought it home and showed my wife. Then as instructed by her I put a trigger lock on it, placed it in a case and put it in my closet. What happened next occurred the very same evening after buying the shotgun.

We ate supper and were in the process of cleaning up when the phone rang. I answered it. A voice on the other end said, This is the Woodbury County Sheriffs Office and there is a deputy outside your door and he wants to talk to you. As I hung up the phone I thought, Oh my gosh they found out I bought a gun!

I told my wife what was going on and then stepped outside. There in front of my house were cars from every law enforcement agency in the area. There were a couple of State Patrol cars, several sheriffs cars and the local police. The officers were out of their cars and searching my lawn.

There was a deputy at the bottom of the porch steps who politely explained, The local police officer reported he heard gunshots in the area and thought it came from here. I thought about it and then remembered hearing something. I told the deputy I heard it too but thought it sounded like a car backfiring.

We talked for a few more minutes and when they couldnt find anything everyone left. I walked back in the house satisfied that the incident was over. There was my wife standing in the living room. She had watched the drama unfold from the window. She had her hands on her hips and was glaring at me. She said, I told you not to buy that damn gun! And walked away.

After a few years of languishing in the closet I finally sold the gun and havent owned one since. Like I said I dont think the Second Amendment applies to me.

Continued here:

Terry's Turn: The Second Amendment | Special Sections ... - Sioux City Journal

Supreme Court Justices Call Second Amendment Case ‘Distressing … – FOX News Radio (blog)

Posted on by

Audio clip: Listen to audio clip.

FOX's Eben Brown has this week's 'FOX Bullet Points':

I'm Eben Brown.

Second Amendment advocates are a bit upset the U.S. Supreme Court didn't take up the case of a California man suing over a denial of a concealed carry permit. In Peruta v. California, the sheriff in San Diego says he can refuse to issue concealed carry permits if the applicant doesn't show a real need for one. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch published a dissent to the court's rejection, calling it 'distressing.'

Meanwhile, in Kansas, it'll be legal to carry without a permit on college campus' starting this Saturday.

You know PayPal, and Square, and Stripe? All three are used more and more by retailers to complete electronic payments. But the three outfits, which are not banks, are now the target of a class action lawsuit. Firearms retailer Blar Gladwin of California, who has his federal firearms license, say the three agencies deny him their services because he sells guns. Gladwin claims it's a civil rights violation.

Those are your Bullet Points! I'm Eben Brown, FOX News!

See original here:

Supreme Court Justices Call Second Amendment Case 'Distressing ... - FOX News Radio (blog)

Dispatches from gun country: This Italian immigrant loves the Second Amendment – Guns.com

Posted on by

Fabrizio Vianello, Second Amendment supporter and owner at Eltenda Channel on Youtube, photographed in Illinois with his Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and his dog Peanut. (Photo: Ben Philippi)

Originally from Italy, Fabrizio Vianello fell in love with an American girl and immigrated to America. Although still fond of his homeland, Fabrizio loves his new country for its infinite possibilities, freedom, and especially, the right to keep and bear arms.

Im the new kid in town.

I moved to America from Europe a few years ago, and since then I have learned so much about what it means to be an American and the importance of the Bill of Rights. People like me have come from all over the world looking for the kind of freedom that America was known for.

The Second Amendment, like all the others, is one of the basic rights that every American in every state should defend. I am surprised at the disinformation campaign of the media and the propaganda against firearms and I hope the people of this great country never forget the importance of their right to bear arms.

Godspeed!

Read more perspectives on Americas gun culture in Ben Philippis book We The People.

Read this article:

Dispatches from gun country: This Italian immigrant loves the Second Amendment - Guns.com

This Is a Fight for the First Amendment, Not against Gay Marriage – National Review

Posted on by

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the man who refused to create a specialty wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012. The stories that are dominating the coverage distort the publics understanding of the case and its serious implications.

For one thing, 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 tweeted, The Supreme Court has agreed to reopen the national debate over same-sex marriage. The headline (like the story) on the website was worse; it read, Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddings. Others similarly framed the case. (And dont worry, religious liberty is almost always solidly ensconced inside quotation marks to indicate that social conservatives are just using it as a faade.)

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

Therefore, the Associated Presss headline, Supreme Court to Decide If Baker Can Refuse Gay Couple Wedding Cake, and the accompanying story are also wrong. As is the New York Times headline Justices to Hear Case on Bakers Refusal to Serve Gay Couple, which was later changed to the even worse headline Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage.

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 Phillipss 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 customers. 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 Mullinss 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 e-mails and social-media reactions Ive gotten regarding this case, people are instinctively antagonistic not only because of the players involved but also because they dont understand the facts. In this era of identity politics, some have been programmed 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: one run on the dogma of social justice.

READ MORE: Three Thoughts on the Masterpiece CakeshopCert Grant The Supreme Courts Religious-Freedom Message: There Are No Second-Class Citizens Legal Radicals Dont Want the Separation of Church and State

David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case against Democracy. 2017 Creators.com

Follow this link:

This Is a Fight for the First Amendment, Not against Gay Marriage - National Review

Lawsuit Calls Seattle’s "Democracy Vouchers" Compelled Speech … – Reason (blog)

Posted on by

justgrimes/FlickrSeattle homeowners are tired of being forced to contribute tax dollars to candidates they do not support, some of whom campaign to further restrict their property rights.

A Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit challenges Seattle's Democracy Voucher program, which has so far dispensed $233,175 in special tax contributions to fund vouchers of up to $100 for city voters to contribute to their favorite local political candidates.

"When you are forced to give a certain amount of money to someone who then uses it to contribute it to a candidate," Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, says, "that's compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment."

Blevins is representing Mark Elster, a Seattle homeowner and self-described "robust supporter of free markets," who objects to being made to underwrite any part of a campaign for candidates, none of whom warrant his support.

So far, the voucher program isn't quite as democratic as envisioned by its progressive sponsors. More than half of the total amount of contributions has gone to Jon Grant, a candidate for an open city council seat and someone who could charitably be described as left-of-center.

A former head of the Washington Tenants Union, Grant has endorsed a range of left-wing housing policies including rent control, mandating affordable housing units in new developments, caps on move-in fees, and giving collective bargaining privileges to tenants.

His opponent, Teresa Mosqueda, and the incumbent candidate for city attorney, Pete Holmes, are the only other candidates who have met the eligibility requirements for the vouchers.

Grant is a strong proponent of Democracy Vouchers, having received 93 percent of all his campaign donations from the program. Prior to the program, "only 1.5 percent of Seattleites donated to a local campaign. This lawsuit clearly demonstrates that the Pacific Legal Foundation is only interested in protecting the interests of the 1%," Grant wrote in a blogpost on his campaign website.

A good deal of his field outreach has been directed at getting homeless people to sign up for the vouchers, and then give that money to him, a practice his campaign manager assures Seattle Weekly is not "exploiting the homeless."

Grant has called the Foundation lawsuit "anti-democratic" and "desperate."

The voucher program, Blevins said, has allowed Grant to do something remarkable. He has "pretty much drawn all his campaign money from a constituency that is inherently opposed to his positions," Blevins said.

Few of the 410,000 registered voters in Seattle can make use of the Democracy Voucher program, even if there were candidates they wanted to support. The tax dollars that fund the vouchers is first come first serve, and not nearly enough is collected each year to ensure that each Seattleite gets a chance to participate.

The funding is capped at $3 million a year, meaning 30,000 or 7 percent of eligible Seattle voters are allowed to make campaign contributions in an election year. As the Seattle Times noted when it editorialized against the 2015 ballot initiative that created Democracy Vouchers, "the proposal counts on people not participating."

In this first election since the program launched, it remains to be seen whether Grant's manipulation of it will be followed by other candidates. The City Council designed the program for a review after 10 years.

Blevins hopes the court recognizing the vouchers for the constitutional abominations they are will end the program years before a review.

"When you are forced to become an unwilling vessel for a message you disagree with," Blevins says, "that violates human dignity and it certainly violates the First Amendment."

Originally posted here:

Lawsuit Calls Seattle's "Democracy Vouchers" Compelled Speech ... - Reason (blog)

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree – Miami Herald

Posted on by

Miami Herald
Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree
Miami Herald
I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, added, Freedom ...

and more »

Read this article:

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Miami Herald

First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First … – PR Newswire (press release)

Posted on by

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute released the results of its State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans' views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted this year in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans' changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.

The results of the 2017 survey show that, despite coming out of one of the most politically contentious years in U.S. history, most Americans remain generally supportive of the First Amendment. When asked if the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed.

However, there are ideological divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on the amount of protection the First Amendment should provide in certain scenarios. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that those who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

This year, 43 percent of Americans agreed that news media outlets try to report the news without bias a significant improvement from only 23 percent in 2016. However, a majority of Americans (53 percent) expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views, demonstrating that many Americans may not view "biased" news in a negative light. The 2017 survey also attempted to assessthe impact of the "fake news" phenomenon. Approximately 70 percent of Americans did not think that fake news reports should be protected by the First Amendment, and about one-third (34 percent) reported a decrease in trust in news obtained from social media.

Regarding freedom of religion, 59 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups, even those widely considered as "extreme" or fringe. The age group least likely to agree with this is Americans between the ages of 18 and 29: Just 49 percent of them supported protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.

On free speech, 43 percent of Americans felt that colleges should have the right to ban controversial campus speakers.Those who strongly agreed or disagreed with this tended to be current students and/or activists (people who had participated in political actions over the past year, such as signing a petition or attending a protest) on both sides of the political spectrum.Other Americans even those in the 18 to 29-year-old millennial demographic were more lukewarm on this issue.

"We were glad to find that most Americans still support the First Amendment, although it's troubling that almost one in four think that we have too much freedom," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It's also troubling that even people who support the First Amendment in the abstract often dislike it when it's applied in real life."

The 2017 survey was conducted and supported by Fors Marsh Group, and contributing support provided by the Gannett Foundation.

Click here to view the complete survey.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-amendment-center-releases-2017-state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-results-300481542.html

SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center

http://www.newseuminstitute.org

More here:

First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First ... - PR Newswire (press release)

Supreme Court stands up for First Amendment – Pleasanton Weekly (blog)

Posted on by

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

View all posts from Tim Hunt

I was saddened to read of the passing of Dick Baker, the long-time president and CEO of Ponderosa Homes. He died May 25 at the age of 73. I have known Dick for many years, particularly through his leadership of the homebuilders charity arm, HomeAid of Northern California. Many years ago, Dick was chairman of the group and initially rejected an application from Shepherds Gate for help with its Livermore campus that just had one residence hall and the offices built. I was serving on the board of Shepherds Gate at the time. I joined our Steve McRee, the Shepherds Gate CEO, when we met with Dick asked for reconsideration. He changed his mind about partnering with our organization. That partnership resulted in three key facilities on the Livermore campus: the second residence hall, the five cottages and last year, the long-awaited Life Center. HomeAid did have a policy of only helping a non-profit once, but modified it for Shepherds Gate and ended up building more than half of the campus. Dicks leadership led to the first commitment and those three buildings and the thousands of women and children who have been served there are a legacy to his vision in partnering with a faith-based organization that never has taken government money.

To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Read the rest here:

Supreme Court stands up for First Amendment - Pleasanton Weekly (blog)

Jewish Federation’s Sets 10th Anniversary First Amendment Dinner … – The Chattanoogan

Posted on by

The Jewish Federation of Greater Chattanooga invites the Chattanooga community to its 10th annual First Amendment Dinner on Thursday, July 13 at 6 p.m. at the Jewish Cultural Center, 5461 North Terrace Road.

"This event educates us about our first amendment rights and honors local veterans for their military service," officials said.

The keynote speakers will be Pam Sohn and Clint Cooper opposing editors of the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

We felt that Sohn and Cooper represent the Chattanooga Times Free Press statement attributed to Adolph Ochs To give the news impartially, without fear or favor," said Michael Dzik, executive director of the Jewish Federation.

The cost for this annual event is $12 (free for veterans and current military personnel) if reserved before July 11. After July 11, the cost is $14 for both veterans and non-veterans. RSVP to 493-0270 ext. 10 or rsvp@jewishchattanooga.com. Space is limited.

The First Amendment Dinner was started ten years ago as a way to honor veterans as well as military personnel and inform the public of their First Amendment Rights. Past speakers have included Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Hedy Weinberg of the ACLU, Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist Clay Bennett, among others. It is increasingly important for the public to understand the importance of keeping the freedoms we have grown to enjoy and to respect those who serve our country in order to keep these freedoms. said Mr. Dzik.

The Times Free Press publishes two editorial pages. On the left side, the Times opinion page offers a more liberal perspective and commentary. On the right, the Free Press editorial page presents a conservative viewpoint.

Mr. Cooper, a writer and editor in Chattanooga for 37 years and Chattanooga native, is a graduate of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He began his journalism career in 1980 as sports writer for the Chattanooga Free Press. For 20 years, Mr. Cooper was sports news editor for the Free Press, and was named assistant sports editor in 1999. Until taking this editorial post,, he was a feature writer primarily covering the faith beat.

During Mr. Cooper's time in the sports department, the Free Press received the Tennessee Sports Writers Association award for Best Section. He has been honored by the Southern League Baseball association for team coverage of the Chattanooga Lookouts. Mr. Cooper is a well-known figure in Chattanooga's faith community, having written a weekly column on religion for more than a decade. Mr. Cooper represents the conservative right side of the editorial page.

Pam Sohn has been an award-winning reporter and editor in Chattanooga for more than 30 years. Ms. Sohn began her journalism career at the Anniston (Al.) Star before coming to work for the Chattanooga Times and later the Chattanooga Times Free Press. In those years, she has been a reporter, assistant lifestyle editor, wire editor, city editor, Sunday editor, projects team leader, and now opinion editor

Ms. Sohn has won numerous writing and editing awards in both Alabama and Tennessee, including first-place honors for breaking news, investigative news, public service, features, reporting without a deadline, and editorials. During her tenure as Sunday editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the paper received the 2002 first-place honors for Best Sunday editions and Sweepstakes Award -- best paper in the state. Ms. Sohn represents the liberal left side of the editorial page.

See original here:

Jewish Federation's Sets 10th Anniversary First Amendment Dinner ... - The Chattanoogan

Here Brazilian Journalists Learn Privacy for Themselves and Their Sources – Brazzil.com

Posted on by

Metadata? Encryption? Backdoor? Tor Browser? VPN? PGP? When it comes to digital security for journalists, the amount of technical terms and acronyms can be scary. But tools to ensure online privacy can be crucial to protecting sources, which is why the site Privacidade para Jornalistas (Privacy for Journalists) has been launched in Brazil.

On the site, a threat analysis helps you understand the best ways to combat surveillance, hacking, and the collection and retention of data from various adversaries, from governments to casual gossipers, to corporations and criminals. The initiative is based on Australias Privacy for Journalists, a project from the non-profit organization CryptoAustralia.

Since Brazilian journalist Raphael Hernandes launched his platform on March 6, 2017, he has been sought by colleagues in the newsroom who need tips on how to protect themselves in their investigations. Hernandes is data journalist at Folha de S. Paulo, where he offered a small workshop on the subject. According to him, the issue of privacy has aroused interest among colleagues.

You can see that whoever accesses [the site] is interested. They spend a lot of time on pages and sees multiple pages per visit (average of 6), which shows interest in content. There are a lot of things we do not look at everyday, at how exposed we are, Hernandes told the Knight Center.

The site that served as inspiration for Hernandes came from the personal initiative of information security specialist Gabor Szathmari, president of CryptoAustralia. He worked with the Walkley Foundation at CryptoParty Sydney, an event to teach digital safety rules to journalists.

I thought if I had to develop the training materials for the workshop, why I should not publish them for the benefit of the whole journalist community in Australia and beyond? I have looked around, and although I found heaps of valuable materials online, I did not find any privacy and security tutorials that were addressing the specifics in Australia, Szathmari told the Knight Center.

Raphael Hernandes explained to the Knight Center that it is important to understand what protection to use in each case.

The secrecy of our sources is one of the most important things we have. If its a person we talk to every day, theres no need to hide him or her, but maybe the source is sending something sensitive and its important to encrypt. We should not live in paranoia, but think about our sources and what they need. Its treating a cold with cold medicine, not with a cannonball, he said.

According to Hernandes, the discussion is especially relevant in Brazil. In the countrys Civil Framework for the Internet, providers are supposed to collect and retain navigation data for one year. A court order is required to access these metadata, but a bill in the Chamber of Deputies wants to remove this requirement.

For Hernandes, this scenario leaves a situation where journalists and individuals should leave as few traces as possible which he assures is not a difficult task.

In fact, there are things that are more advanced, such as setting up GlobaLeaks (a secure file and message exchange tool). But were here to help. And apart from that, most are tools we can use at home anytime. It may seem difficult at first, but more so because it has words that we do not use every day, such as back door (software that allows remote access to the computer), he said.

According to Szathmari, the most basic security measures include replacing messaging programs like Messenger and Skype for encrypted platforms, like Signal and Wire. In more sensitive cases, other measures are necessary.

Finally, leave your smartphone home if you are meeting with the source, as it is a spying machine. I suggest avoiding a computer altogether and dusting off that good old reporters notebook for very sensitive notes, he said.

Concerns about digital security are not unique to Brazil or Australia. Several journalism organizations around the world, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), have sections dedicated to the topic. Other organizations dedicated to digital security, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, offer specific tips and guides for journalists and their sources.

Here are some basic protection tools, according to Raphael Hernandes:

Encryption of HD and flash drives Encryption places a password on hard drives and USB devices, which protect sources and personal files in case the equipment is lost or stolen.

Two-Step Authentication Used for online banking access, it can be configured in your email and social networks. Login is done with something you know (your password) and something you have (a code sent to your smartphone, for example). This avoids problems even if you have compromised passwords.

Signal Application available for encrypted message smartphones. If the cell phone is intercepted, no one can understand what was written there.

Sync.com Free cloud storage system. It uses the zero-knowledge protocol, meaning it stores information but does not know what is being stored. As a rule, the websites we use commonly scan the files and pass reports to the authorities. Sync is encrypted and more secure, very simple to use.

PGP Pretty Good Privacy acronym. Its a way to encrypt emails. Like a kind of chest, but with two keys: one to lock and the other to unlock. You give the key that locks the chest so people can send you files and messages. But only you have the keys to unlock the content.

This article appeared originally in Journalism in the Americas https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/

See the original post:

Here Brazilian Journalists Learn Privacy for Themselves and Their Sources - Brazzil.com

SolarCoin Is A Cryptocurrency Earned By Generating Solar … – CleanTechnica

Posted on by

Published on June 29th, 2017 | by Derek Markham

June 29th, 2017 by Derek Markham

Solar electricity production + blockchain = a currency based on sunshine

Just as cryptocurrency has become a disruptive technology, so has renewable energy, and although those two distinct sectors havent really come into their own just yet, an innovative solar incentive program is incorporating both solar electricity production and the blockchain, with the intent of boosting and supporting one with the other.

Instead of a digitally mined product, this cryptocurrencys proof of work happens in the physical world, and those who have photovoltaic arrays can earn SolarCoin just for generating solar electricity. Its essentially a global solar rewards program, and is designed to help incentivize more solar electricity production, while also serving as a lower-carbon cryptocurrency than Bitcoin and similar alternative currencies.

We initially covered SolarCoin in 2014, right after it launched, and since then, the project has rewarded more than 10,000 solar installations for their electricity generation (totaling somewhere north of 200 megawatts). [As a side note, its actually somewhat surprising to me that the number is only 10,000 solar generators, considering that the currency is granted essentially for free to any solar producer that gets verified.]

This 90-second intro video explains SolarCoin in a nutshell:

SolarCoin is like airmiles for global solar electricity producers. Joseph Zitoli, The SolarCoin Foundation

This longer (5 minute) video explains where SolarCoin gets its value from:

As of January of 2017, more than 34 million SolarCoins have been put into circulation, with that figure growing by about 5,000 per week, and some 240,000 SolarCoins have gone to solar producers in 23 countries. In addition, two solar-focused crowdfunding platforms, Lumo and TheSunExchange, are now incorporating SolarCoin, the Belgian energy monitor company Smappee includes SolarCoin in its features, and in March 2017, the French collaborative energy supplier ekWateur became the first energy company to accept SolarCoin as a means of payment.

SolarChange, the SolarCoin Foundation platform that integratesthe SolarCoin Blockchain and incorporates a host of other monitoring and energy management features, was recently chosen to participate in the four month MassChallenge Israel accelerator program, which could help ramp up the solar currencys adoption.

The Goal for SolarChange in the MassChallenge program is to dramatically scale its AI-Blockchain interface solutions and Prosumer incentive capabilities from a Startup company to SME and expose its technology to utilities and the solar industry.

As far as cryptocurrecies go, SolarCoin (SLR) has a lot of growing to do, as it is shooting for an eventual $30 price but is currently hovering just over $0.20. Aside from getting a lot more solar generators onboard, there are also issues with scaling up its adoption as an alternative currency for both buyers and sellers of goods. The Swiss currency marketplace Lykke Exchange has added SolarCoin to its offerings, with Lykke CEO Richard Olsen (who ended up joining the SolarCoin Foundation advisory board) putting it succinctly, Our users can now convert sunshine directly into francs, euros or bitcoins.

Bringing the SolarCoin currency into the Lykke Exchange is a logical extension of our long-term plan. We are always looking for ways to expand market access and increase participation. Challenging conventional wisdom is what we do best, and we will be able to do it that much better with the passionate, forward-thinking SolarCoin community on our exchange. Olsen

A recent article in PV Tech by Florent Andrillon sums up the challenges facing SolarCoin, as well as a key selling point for the currency:

SolarCoins success will depend on the capacity to generate a large and robust ecosystem, and leverage social added value to differentiate from other cryptocurrencies.

In contrast to most other cryptocurrencies, its not just the financial value of the SolarCoin currency thats at the core of its strength. Sure, SolarCoin could be a legitimate investment option for those looking for a future return, but far more value may come from its incentivizing of solar energy production, which the project hopes to underwrite for some 40 years, to the tune of about 97,500 TWh of solar electricity.

And it is gaining acceptance, as IRENA and Solar Power Europe have endorsed the currency, but there are still many challenges to overcome:

Stakeholder engagement with power producers, investors, companies and individuals to convince, educate and reconcile on economic and financial and technical challenges is critical. Convincing power producers to share generation data is also a key challenge. At last, driving consensus among companies to promote SolarCoins depends on its liquidity and consumer attractiveness compared to other cryptocurrencies. Andrillon

Learn more at SolarCoin and SolarChange.

Hat tip: Karl Graves. Images: SolarCoin

Check out our new 93-page EV report.

Join us for an upcoming Cleantech Revolution Tour conference!

Tags: Bitcoin, Cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency, SolarCoin

Derek Markham lives in southwestern New Mexico and digs bicycles, simple living, organic gardening, sustainable lifestyle design, slacklining, bouldering, and permaculture. He loves good food, with fresh roasted chiles at the top of his list of favorites. Catch up with Derek on Twitter, RebelMouse, Google+, or at his natural parenting site, Natural Papa!

See the original post:

SolarCoin Is A Cryptocurrency Earned By Generating Solar ... - CleanTechnica

Why Can’t US Citizens Participate in Cryptocurrency ICOs? – The Merkle

Posted on by

Given the recent popularity of cryptocurrency ICOs, it was to be expected some things would be unclear to a lot of people. One of the most recurring questions is why all of these ICOs try to prevent US citizens from participating. There are many different reasons as to why this is the case, even though the countermeasures can be bypassed quite easily.

Anyone who has recently participated in a cryptocurrency ICO or pre-ICO may have noticed how these offerings are, in theory not available to residents in the US. Some projects even go as far as trying to dissuade residents from Singapore to participate as well. It is evident these two regions do not take kindly to cryptocurrency ICOs, mainly due to regulatory reasons.

To put this into perspective, the United States is quite strict when it comes to investment regulations. Only accredited investors can partake in private placements of securities. While some people would urge all cryptocurrency ICOs are tokens and not securities, regulators will have a very different opinion regarding this matter. A lot of the ICOs we have seen can be labeled as traditional sales of equity.

As is to be expected, the team organizing a cryptocurrency ICO cannot guarantee only accredited US investors will partake. They can take the necessary steps to prevent most US citizens from investing, although these measures can be bypassed. Right now, the ICOs tend to ask if you are a US citizen, but there is no verification of whether or not one speaks the truth. Some projects use geolocation to block US citizens, but those can be bypassed with a proxy or VPN. It is impossible to prevent US citizens from participating, but these measures have to be taken regardless.

Some of the bigger cryptocurrency ICOs will ensure they hire lawyers who can create a more workable environment for interested parties. If they would not take these steps, their entire token sale would be liable to criminal charges in the US. That is, assuming the SEC would ever decide to investigate a particular crowdsale for those specific reasons. It is highly unlikely that will happen, even though the SEC is looking to regulate ICOs moving forward.

Once the SEC will effectively intervene in cryptocurrency ICOs which is only a matter of time things will get very interesting, to say the least. A lot of previous ICOs didnt take the necessary steps to deny US citizens from investing. All of those projects and their teams are at the mercy of the SEC for the time being. Violating US securities laws is not something anyone wants to deal with. Additionally, these laws can also be enforced upon non-US companies, which makes it even more important to take countermeasures.

It is evident this unregulated space will be of keen interest to financial watchdogs all over the world in the coming years. The bigger question is how many companies will get burnt for not doing their due diligence. It is bad enough to know most of these projects may ultimately fail. Worrying about future criminal charges will certainly have a big impact on all of these crowdsales moving forward.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

See the original post:

Why Can't US Citizens Participate in Cryptocurrency ICOs? - The Merkle

The 3 Cryptocurrencies to Watch This Month – HuffPost

Posted on by

A look at three cryptocurrencies that show tons of promise.

June 2017 has been a wild month for cryptocurrency. First, Bancor set the industry record for the largest-ever ICO at just over $150 million. A week later, Status.im (SNT) raised $275 million in under 3 hours during its ICO, contributing to an Ethereum flash crash.

And those are just two examples among many. Amid all the hullabaloo, it might feel hard to figure out which cryptocurrencies are worth investing in. So I sat down with Lucas Hendren, CTO of SimplyVital Health, to discuss the most promising cryptocurrencies to watch in July.

CoinJoker

Without a doubt, the name thats hot on every crypto-enthusiasts lips this month is Tezos, a new decentralized blockchain that governs itself by establishing a true digital commonwealth. With its ICO occurring July 1 (yep, thats tomorrow), the buzz of speculation is inescapable. Jeremy Epstein of Never Stop Marketing recently heralded its ICO as the Netscape of the blockchainin other words, the ICO that inflates the blockchain bubble by capturing the attention of the broader public. Naysayers point out that, while the ethos of Tezos is sound, it wont be able to hit critical mass in the face of a stronger and more established competitor. Proponents cite its robust security, capability to scale, and emphasis on true decentralization as natural next steps in the evolution of the ideas laid out (and arguably, confirmed) by Ethereum.

Tezos could theoretically have all the abilities of Ethereumbut in addition, its switching straight to proof-of-stake, said Hendren. The idea behind proof-of-stake is that its much less energy and time intensive, which would lead to faster transactions at a lower cost.

By launching the system with a proof-of-stake model from the onset, Tezos could sidestep some of the growing pains that have faced Ethereum. Furthermore, the governance system Tezos has built into its system gives it the capability to grow over time.

Tezos allows for a much easier way to upgrade and manage the system and insure that it has constant upgrades, said Hendren. If youve been following Bitcoin and Ethereum, a big problem theyve been having is how they go about upgrading. With Tezos, if you join part of that system, therell be a periodic vote to determine if theyre going to upgrade the system, and if so, what theyre going to upgrade it tothis is a massive simplification of itbut if a certain quorum is met and a vote passes, the entire system upgrades.

As to the Tezos vs Ethereum argument, Hendren expressed confidence in both, citing Tezoss upgrade-ability as a cause for genuine excitement.

Long-term it very well might be a competitor with Ethereum, but at the moment the space is so large and empty that theres room for both of them to grow, said Hendren. The main reason to be excited about it is that theyve potentially solved the problem of upgrading that many of the other blockchain networks have had.

Golem purports to be the new way the Internet will work, and when you start to look under the hood, you realize how and why they can make such a bold claim. (And if youve kept up with the latest season of Silicon Valley, itll sound eerily familiar).

The whole idea behind GNT is it allows you to sell your processing power, said Hendren. That basically means that you as an individualif you have, say, any laptop that you arent usingyou can sell your laptop as a server and make money from it. So you end up with this massive distributed computing network; it basically turns into the worlds largest supercomputer in a decentralized format. I think that is a very powerful idea that has a lot of potential.

GNT has already ICOed, but will entering its Alpha in very short time (very likely this month)and that Alpha is aiming to make high-intensity computing tasks like animation and CGI rendering much easier and cheaper.

Their Alpha will allow you to do CGI rendering and other animation rendering on their Golem network, potentially at a much cheaper cost than normal, said Hendren. And thats going to be released very soonmaking it something to watch right now. Theres a very high chance that GNT could gain a lot of value.

On the flipside of the computing equation, MaidSafe offers users the chance to sell their computers storage on the network.

MaidSafe allows you to safely secure your assets on a distributed network and distributed applications, said Hendren. So its similar to Golem but its more set up for data storage than it is for processing, and that is also a very useful, powerful idea.

The idea here is that theres tons of storage going to waste right now, and MaidSafe lets users sell this storage the same way one might rent out their apartment on Airbnb.

If you have a laptop, you can sell your storage space on this network, said Hendren. This is a simplified version, but: I have a laptop in my room Im not using at the momentI could load my computer up to this network and store data for other people for money.

For hopeful investors, Hendren explained that the next month will be the best time to get in early before MaidSafe enters its Alpha.

One big reason to watch it is that theyre releasing their Alpha on August 12, said Hendren. Whenever I advise tokens I usually advise you to go read the white paper and do your own researchbut if you want to get in early for this one, you have til August 12 to get in.

By letting users store encrypted data in a distributed format, MaidSafe effectively offers user privacy and autonomy in a way no current cloud storage solution does.

Hendren also advised newcomers to these markets to adopt two strategies when it comes to investing.

The main thing right now for everyone in there: in my opinion, you should try to avoid technical analyses, said Hendren. If you buy into something, you should plan on either holding for a long time or selling it at a certain point youve already planned out.

Why? Hendren references last weeks flash-crash as one example.

The reason for that is because this market is so young and immature, which is also some of the reason you can get great returns, said Hendren. There a few fish that have a massive amount of these currencies just waiting to sell that can basically move the market singlehandedly in any direction they want to. Any single event could have a massive influence on these things. My advice is not to be emotional, to buy in, sell out, buy in, and sell out again. Otherwise there are large sharks out there that will destroy you.

Disclosure: Damiani and Hendren have invested in GNT and MAID, and intend to participate in the Tezos ICO. Neither are professional financial analysts or advisors.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read the original:

The 3 Cryptocurrencies to Watch This Month - HuffPost

Nvidia, AMD Battle for Cryptocurrency Supremacy; Oil Markets Steady — ICYMI Thursday – TheStreet.com

Posted on by

Keep the megadeals and uncertainty coming, it's great for us in the news business. Not so much for some investors that may have not seen the recent tech sell-off coming or who haven't been following this missive where all I seem to do is harp on M&A and activism. But, we'll get to that later.

Despite a serious sell-off, TheStreet was focused on two hot names in tech: Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) that have seen a recent boost given the cyberattacks that have ravaged multinational companies and put a spot light on cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin.

TheStreet's Annie Palmer writes that the two are in a heated battle to design chips optimized to mine Bitcoin. According to many on Wall Street, there is going to be one clear winner in this battle.

Outside of tech, the oil markets held steady on Thursday, a rare occurrence for the commodity that has been on a roller coaster ride for as long as I can remember. Crude oil prices held onto gains to close higher for a sixth session in a row. West Texas Intermediate had surged 1.1% a day earlier, even after an increase in domestic stockpiles.

I told you we would get to activism and M&A ... Let's talk about the second merger to rock everyone's world in the past two weeks (after Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) and Whole Foods Market Inc. (WFM) , which I can't help but go on and on about: the merger of Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. (WBA) and Rite Aid Corp. (RAD) .

Thursday got off with a bang as the two companies announced a revised deal that includes about half of Rite Aid stores as opposed to the roughly two-thirds of them that were included in the original deal. Whether you think the new deal will be enough to pass antitrust officials is one thing, but the fact that Fred's Inc. (FRED) may be in trouble, much to the displeasure of activist David Einhorn, or the fact that CVS Health (CVS) may have to do something to help keep itself relevant seem to be two safe assumptions.

This is an excerpt from "In Case You Missed It," a daily newsletter brought to you by TheStreet. Sign up here.

Photo of the day:Happy birthday to the iPhone

Ten years ago, people were lining up to buy the very first generation of Apple's (AAPL) new product, the iPhone. Initially priced at $599 for an 8GB model, the device was more expensive than most other phones on the market, but the novel touchscreen, capacity for music and inclusion of the Safari web browser made the hefty fee worth it for many. Now, a decade later, the price has actually climbed even higher for a first-generation iPhone because of its collectible value--as long as it's new and unopened. Currently, the product that was first released to the public on June 29, 2007, is selling for $4,000 on eBay unopened and in its original packaging.

Read more from "In Case You Missed It." Sign up here.

More here:

Nvidia, AMD Battle for Cryptocurrency Supremacy; Oil Markets Steady -- ICYMI Thursday - TheStreet.com

This Is Why Nvidia Is Poised to Trample Advanced Micro Devices in the Cryptocurrency Mining Market – TheStreet.com

Posted on by

Rumors are swirling that Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) may soon launch dedicated graphics cards for cryptocurrency mining, which could unlock access to a market that's estimated to be worth at least half a billion dollars.

It could also spur an even greater rise in the chipmaker's stock, on top of the 37.8% its gained year to date, making it the best performing stock in the S&P 500so far this year. Shares of Nvidia fell more than 3% to $146.68 on Thursday, however, asinvestors continued a recent rotation out of tech stocks, dragging the FAANG stocks and other mega-cap tech names down further.

Shares of Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s (AMD) have gotten a boost recently thanks to a resurgence in mining of an alternative cryptocurrency called Ethereum. Mining is the process of verifying cryptocurrency transactions, at which point the transactions are added to the public ledger, called the blockchain. New cryptocurrency is created every time a transaction is verified, and those mining it make money whenever they do so.

Nvidia has yet to confirm that it will sell dedicated cryptocurrency cards, but product listings for chips using Nvidia-based and AMD-based GPUs recently appeared on Asus' website as part of a "Mining Series." Asus serves as a distribution partner for both chipmakers. Additionally, Christopher Rolland, an analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group, said he recently met with supply chain companies in Asia who confirmed that Nvidia plans to release two new graphics cards targeted for the cryptocurrency mining market.

If either company chooses to release a cryptocurrency-specific chip, Nvidia would be the clear winner, said RBC Capital Markets analyst Mitch Steves.

"Nvidia will win in the long term," Steves said. "They've historically been the best breed product for gaming and data center chips, so Nvidia will come out ahead. They have a product edge in general."

Read more from the original source:

This Is Why Nvidia Is Poised to Trample Advanced Micro Devices in the Cryptocurrency Mining Market - TheStreet.com

Here’s When You Should Buy Bitcoin and Ethereum – Fortune

Posted on by

About two months ago, hedge fund billionaire Michael Novogratz made a bold announcement: He'd put 10% of his net worth into digital currencies including Bitcoin and Ethereum. But a lot can happen in a couple of months. Specifically, the price of Bitcoin has more than doubled, and the Ethereum price has multiplied six-fold.

So around the time the cryptocurrencies reached all-time highs earlier in June, with the Bitcoin price hitting $3,000 and Ethereum breaking $400 the following day, Novogratz thought the current crypto boom had topped out. He sold "a bunch" of his digital coins.

"I think the market had a spectacular run, and trees dont grow to the sky," Novogratz said this week, speaking at CBInsights' Future of Fintech conference in New York. "So I probably still have roughly 10% of my net worth in crypto, but its been scaled way back."

I own a lot less coins, theyre just worth more," Novogratz added.

His call turned out to be well-timed. Just days after setting record prices, Bitcoin and Ethereum crashed as much as 25% in just 24 hours. Ethereum kept right on falling, at one point trading 46% off its high and that's not even counting last week's flash crash in which the price briefly plummeted to just 10 cents.

Cryptocurrency traders have become accustomed to their prices violently whipsawing up and down in waves a 30% drop in the Bitcoin price in May preceded its recent peak by about two weeks but the current downdraft appears more sustained. Though the cryptocurrencies, rooted in a technology system known as the blockchain, have each since recovered some of their losses, they have yet to come anywhere close to their highs.

Now, Novogratz, who formerly ran a hedge fund at Fortress Investment Group and now invests in blockchain companies, thinks the cryptocurrencies have peaked for the time being, and it could be a while before they return to record levels. "I think we may have put the highs in for the year in Ethereum, and you're going to slowly consolidate," he said at the conference.

To be sure, the billionaire is still bullish on digital currency over the longer term hes just waiting for the right time to buy again. And he has a pretty good idea of when that is.

If Bitcoin fell back down to $1600, he said, hed "be buying a lot of it." And if the Ethereum price retreated to between $150 and $200, it would be cheap enough to merit buying more, he added.

Those prices would give Ethereum a total market value of about $20 billion, which "sounds about right for where we are" in the evolution of the technology, Novogratz said.

After all, even if you believe, as he does, that the cryptocurrencies have much further to run he compares the current phase of the industry to the third inning of a baseball game investors who bought in amid crescendoing hype have still gotten burned in the meantime. "If you buy Ether at $400 and it goes to $200, I dont care what inning you think it is, it feels really shitty," Novogratz said. "Youve got to be pretty careful when you enter these things."

(Lest anyone doubt the present frenzy among cryptocurrency traders, a popular Reddit thread points to a newly created website shouldisellmybitcoins.com , which generates a No response in the form of a different amusing Gif image each time anyone clicks on it.)

Eventually, however, Novogratz believes there will come a time when investors are better off getting out of cryptocurrency entirely though its likely still a long way off. "I sense that this blockchain, Bitcoin, Ethereum, ICO revolution is going to be the single greatest bubble of our lifetime," he predicted. Of course, when that bubble pops, its probably a perfect time to buy back in.

Visit link:

Here's When You Should Buy Bitcoin and Ethereum - Fortune