The Only 5 Countries That Meet NATO’s Defense Spending Requirements – TIME

Poland's 6th Airborne Brigade soldiers walk with U.S. 82nd Airborne Division soldiers during the NATO allies' Anakonda 16 exercise near Torun, Poland, on June 7, 2016. Kacper PempelReuters

Getting NATO allies to spend more on defense is one of President Donald Trumps most consistent foreign policy proposals. He might be on to something.

According to NATOs own figures, just 5 of the 28 alliance members meet the requirement agreed upon in 2006 that members spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Here's a deeper look at the handful of countries actually meeting their obligations:

1. The U.S. 3.61 percent of GDP on defense

The self-imposed 2 percent threshold has never made much practical difference to the U.S., which has been spending on its military at a much higher rate since World War II. Thats what happens when youre locked in an arms-race with a nuclear-armed superpower. But even after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, U.S. military spending dipped but never went below 2 percent. And since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, its moved sharply higher. Today, the U.S. outspends the next seven nations combined when it comes to defense. In fiscal year 2017, the U.S. plans to spend $582.7 billion on defense, more than the entire national economic output of all but 20 countries in the world.

Trump is not wrong when he says the U.S. pays more than its fair share. After all, the rest of NATOs members combined spent less than half of what the U.S. budgeted (in absolute terms) in 2016. But, in rattling NATOs cage, Trump also has to contend with the alliances popularity among Americans. Some 77 percent of Americans believe NATO membership benefits the U.S. Then theres the fact that his message for more NATO solidarity is undercut by his support for Brexit and other moves to diminish the E.U.

2. Greece 2.38 percent of GDP spent on defense

Given its current economic woes, you might be surprised to see Greece on the list. But Greece has been splashing out for decades, averaging a defense budget of 6.2 percent of GDP throughout the 1980s . Much of this has to do with its historically tense relationship with Turkey, a fellow NATO member currently helmed by a president prone to brash rhetoric and not-so-veiled threats.

Then theres the fact that the Greek military employs 2.7 percent of the Greece labor force , according to 2013 figures. With an overall unemployment rate at around 23 percent , every little bit helps. Mandatory conscription also doesnt hurt. And its worth noting that Greeces overall GDP shrunk 45 percent between 2008 and 2015 , which helps keep their NATO contribution as a percentage of GDP look bigger despite massive cuts. Back in 2009, Greece was spending roughly $10 billion on defense. By 2015, it was spending just $4.6 billion, but that still managed to push it over the NATO threshold.

3. United Kingdom 2.21 percent of GDP spent on defense

At the end of the day, 2 percent is an arbitrary figure, and one thats difficult to calculate at that. That much has been made clear by the current row gripping the UK; the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) announced last week that the UK was not in fact meeting its 2 percent commitment. Instead, the London-based think tank estimates the government is only spending 1.98 percent of its GDP on defense. Ministry of Defense officials hit back, saying that NATOs own figures show that the country is meeting its commitments, while the British opposition accused the government of changing its accounting methods to give the illusion of keeping the commitment.

Whether or not Britain is actually meeting its NATO commitments is a big deal. When U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May visited Donald Trump in January, she pledged to encourage other NATO members to fulfill their obligations in exchange for Trumps 100 percent commitment to NATO . The fact that the U.K. may not be fulfilling those same obligations may rankle Trump at a time when the Brexit-bound Britain needs all the friends it can get.

4. Estonia 2.16 percent of GDP spent on defense

Then there are the Baltics, on the frontlines with Russia. While Estonia is the only one of the three Baltic states that actually meets NATOs 2 percent threshold, it actually spends less than Lithuania in absolute terms . On the heels of Russias 2014 annexation of Crimea, both Latvia and Lithuania pledged to meet the NATO threshold by 2018. Theyre well on their way, and by 2020 the three Baltic countries are together planning to spend nearly $2 billion a year on defense, more than double when they first entered NATO in 2004.

But as I discussed with the Estonian president, Kersti Kaljulaid, over the weekend at the Munich Security Conference, the fear of Russia has fundamentally morphed. Shes no longer worried about cross-border tensions or the roughly 26 percent of ethnic Russians who make up her countrys population. Instead, shes focused on Kremlin-sponsored propaganda and fake news aimed at delegitimizing her government. And as the U.S. can attest, big military spending alone isnt enough to prevent that.

5. Poland 2 percent of GDP spent on defense

Rounding out the list is Poland, which just squeaks past the mandated 2 percent threshold. But Poland is a particularly interesting story. Even though Warsaw scrapped compulsory military service back in 2008, the last few years have seen a rise in organized paramilitary forces. These groups pay for their own uniforms and weapons, and practice military exercises over the weekend. The fact that Poland borders a piece of isolated Russian territory called Kaliningrad is not lost on these Poles. Since Russias invasion of Crimea, the absolute number of people joining the approximately 120 paramilitary organizations has tripled . Theyve also won support from the nationalist-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government, which intends to have 53,000 of these part-time soldiers spread throughout the country by 2019 as a sort of national guard. That would be equivalent to 1/3 of all Polish military personnel . Sometimes, military preparedness goes beyond the headline number.

Read this article:

The Only 5 Countries That Meet NATO's Defense Spending Requirements - TIME

Iowa Air Guard Refueling Wing Supports NATO Missions – Department of Defense

By Air Force Staff Sgt. Daniel Ter Haar, Iowa Air National Guard

NATO AIR BASE GEILENKIRCHEN, Germany, Feb. 24, 2017 This month, members of the Iowa Air National Guard's 185th Air Refueling Wing based in Sioux City, Iowa, are refueling NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft while assigned here.

Approximately 40 members from the 185th are in Germany for two weeks supporting NATO missions.

The AWACS involves multifaceted radar equipped aircraft that provide surveillance and command and control for NATO areas of responsibility. Onboard aircraft crews provide communications and control for U.S. and partner nations, while also keeping a close eye on potential adversaries. These missions require long flight times and inflight refueling provided by Air Guard units like the 185th.

According to Royal Netherlands Air Force Capt. Andr Bongers, a public affairs officer stationed at Geilenkirchen, the long-standing partnership with the Air Guard is important to maintaining stability in the region.

A Very Successful Partnership

"This has always been a very successful partnership. During 40 weeks per year the Air Guard provides essential training to the NATO E-3A Component. This is vital because pilots at the E-3A Component normally stay around for only four years, Bongers said. This means theres a high demand for training to ensure new crew members are combat ready. The high level of professionalism and flexibility delivered by the Air Guard is of great importance to get the right amount of training."

NATO AWACS play a critical role in many ongoing missions in the region, Bongers said, such as counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria operations, Eastern Europe surveillances and Mediterranean maritime operations. He said they also fly for high visibility events such as the recent NATO summit in Warsaw and big regional exercises like Red Flag and Arctic Challenge.

According to Air Force Lt. Col. Joseph Bosch, the Air National Guards liaison in Geilenkirchen, the Air Guard has been working with NATO forces since 2015. Bosch also said that the Air Guard brings a level of unmatched experience to refueling operations, especially units like the 185th.

"It is always a pleasure having the 185th. This wing has a special dedication to this mission and shows time and again how much they love our mission here. Sioux City always brings their "A" game to make this special spot better than when they arrived," Bosch said.

Continued here:

Iowa Air Guard Refueling Wing Supports NATO Missions - Department of Defense

Darmanovi: Montenegro in NATO by the end of May – European Western Balkans (press release)

PODGORICA - Montenegro received guarantees that the US Senate will ratify the NATO Accession Protocol, said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sra Darmanovi in an interview for Reuters, Montenegrin CDM reports.

He said that he was expecting Montenegro to become a full fledged member by the end of May. He said that they received a 100% guarantee that the US Senate would ratify the Protocol.

He denied claims that the ratification could be victim to Trumps administration desire to improve relations with Russia.

We understand that Trump wants to improve relations in Russia, especially when it comes to war on terrorism, but we do not see signs that point to sacrificing basic US national interests, Darmanovi said.

He reminded that out 28 NATO members, four have not ratified yet, out of procedural reasons the US, Canada, Netherlands and Spain.

We expect audition at the next summit in the end of May. It is reasonable to expect that all the procedures would be finalized by then, Darmanovi said.

More here:

Darmanovi: Montenegro in NATO by the end of May - European Western Balkans (press release)

Judge Rejects Warrant Seeking To Force Everyone At A Searched … – Techdirt

Late last year, Thomas Fox-Brewster of Forbes uncovered a strange search warrant among a pile of unsealed documents. The warrant -- approved by a magistrate judge -- allowed law enforcement officers to demand that everyone present at the searched location provide their fingerprints to unlock devices seized from the same location.

In support of its request, the government cited cases dating back to 1910, as though they had any relevance to the current situation. The most recent case cited was 30 years old -- still far from easily applicable to today's smartphones, which are basically pocket-sized personal data centers.

The judge granted it, stating that demands for fingerprints, passwords, or anything (like encryption keys) that might give law enforcement access to the devices' content did not implicate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. While the magistrate was correct that no court has found the application of fingerprints to unlock devices to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, the other access options (passwords, encryption keys) might pose Fifth Amendment problems down the road.

Riana Pfefferkorn has uncovered a similar warrant request, but this one has been rejected by the magistrate judge. Pretty much across the board, the order is the antithesis of the one revealed last year. The judge finds [PDF] that the broad request to force everyone present at the residence to apply their fingerprints to seized devices to unlock them implicates multiple Constitutional amendments.

The issues presented in this warrant application are at the cross section of protections provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Essentially, the government seeks an order from this Court that would allow agents executing this warrant to force "persons at the Subject Premises" to apply their thumbprints and fingerprints to any Apple electronic device recovered at the premises. (See Attach. B, tT 12.) The request is neither limited to a particular person nor a particular device. And, as noted below, the request is made without any specific facts as to who is involved in the criminal conduct linked to the subject premises, or specific facts as to what particular Apple-branded encrypted device is being employed (if any).

The judge notes the government is able to detain and search persons located at the premises being searched, but that does not extend to forcing every single person in a residence at the time of a search to comply with attempts to unlock seized devices. Because the warrant affidavit contained no particularity about the devices or who in the household the government suspected of engaging in criminal activity, the court can't find anything that justifies the broad, inclusive language contained in the request.

This Court agrees that the context in which fingerprints are taken, and not the fingerprints themselves, can raise concerns under the Fourth Amendment. In the instant case, the government is seeking the authority to seize any individual at the subject premises and force the application of their fingerprints as directed by government agents. Based on the facts presented in the application, the Court does not believe such Fourth Amendment intrusions are justified based on the facts articulated.

The court has other problems with the affidavit -- beyond the government's unwarranted extension of Fourth/Fifth Amendment jurisprudence to cover any devices/fingerprints encountered at a searched location. Early in the order, it notes the government is deploying boilerplate nearly as outdated as its case citiations.

Despite the apparent seriousness of the offenses involved, the Court notes that some of the "boilerplate" background information included in the warrant is a bit dated, such as its explanation that "[t]he internet allows any computer to connect to another computer [so] [e]lectronic contact can be made to millions of computers around the world;" its explanation that a "Blackberry" is a common "Personal Digital Assistant" and its suggestion that the use of "cloud technology" is the exceptional way of transferring files and that transferring images to a computer by directly connecting a cable to a camera or other recording device is the expected means of data transfer.

The judge notes outdated boilerplate isn't enough to undo probable cause assertions, but it certainly doesn't help -- especially not when the government is requesting this sort of broad permission.

The inclusion of this somewhat dated view of technology certainly does not distract from the application's goal of establishing probable cause. However, the dated "boilerplate language" is problematic for what is not included. There is absolutely no discussion of wireless internet service and the possibilities and capabilities that wireless service presents in this context. For example, an unsophisticated intemet user, or a careless one, may fail to properly encrypt his wireless service or may share the password injudiciously. Such practices leave open the possibility that it is not an inhabitant of the subject premises that has used the internet to gather and distribute child pornography, but rather it is a person who has access to the internet service at the subject premises.

Obviously, this possibility holds true in all investigations that track the investigation outlined in the instant application. The limitations of this investigation are not fatal to establishing probable cause, but, in the Court's view, these limitations do impact the ability of the government to seek the extraordinary authority related to compelling individuals to provide their fingerprints to unlock an Apple electronic device.

Then there's the other assertions. The government's application does nothing to narrow down which resident it's seeking or what device(s) might contain evidence of criminal activity. What it does appear to be certain about -- for reasons not included in the application -- is that the devices it seeks are Apple products. A footnote in the order questions this assertion.

Why Apple devices are likely to be found at the premises is not explained. The Court is aware that Apple has a large market share in online hardware, but Microsoft's Windows operating systems continue to dominate the overall market share of operating systems used.

What makes these broad, unsupported assertions even worse, especially when combined with the outdated boilerplate, is that this is apparently the direction the government is heading with its search warrants.

In closing, upon presentation of the warrant application to this Court, the government identified for this Court that the warrant application was seeking the forced fingerprinting discussed herein. The government further noted "[t]his is the language that we are making standard in all of our search warrants." This declaration of standardization is perhaps the crux of the problem. As the Court hopes it is plain from the above, the issues presented here require a fact-intensive inquiry both for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.

More particularity, better probable cause, and fewer assumptions about the Fourth and Fifth Amendment's application in a post-Riley world are what's needed from the government, according to this order. Even though this application was rejected, it's safe to say this same approach has worked elsewhere. We've seen one approved warrant already and there are likely several more safely hidden from the public eye in the government's multitudinous sealed cases.

What's troubling about the government's assertions in this application is its apparent belief it's found an encryption workaround: one that blows past Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns using little more than boilerplate that still considers cables to be an essential part of "cloud computing," and magistrate judges willing to buy its outdated legal arguments.

Go here to see the original:

Judge Rejects Warrant Seeking To Force Everyone At A Searched ... - Techdirt

How Congress Can Remove an Unstable President – Newsweek – Newsweek

This article first appeared on the Verdict site.

Donald Trump may have had a rocky first three weeksin office, but they now look like a blissful honeymoon compared to the fourth one.

Amida flurry of leaks and reports of staff disarray, Trump suffered his first defeat on a Cabinet nomination, withdrawing his choice for labor secretary. He gave up on his appeals in State of Washington v. Trump, leaving the order suspending his travel ban intact.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Anonymous aides portrayed the nations CEO roaming the White House alone at night in his bathrobe, watching cable news obsessively, and calling his national security adviserMichael Flynnat 3 a.m. to ask whether a strong or weak dollar was better for America. That same retiredLt. Gen. Flynn soon found himself defenestrated from the young administration, ostensibly for misrepresenting his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

Flynns departure revived long-standing charges that Trumps election was propelled by a Russian intelligence operation. A thorough investigation of these chargeswere the Republican-controlled Congress to permit onecould well implicate key campaign aides as coconspirators, and perhaps reach the president himself. Impeachment began to loom as a distinct (though distant) possibility.

It would normally take a Category 5 hurricane or an alien invasion to move such a story off the front pages, but President Trump may have momentarily succeeded in doing so with his 80-minute press conference. In a performance that seemed to rattle even sympathetic observers, Trump lashed out against the media and his critics with a vehemence that often bordered on incoherence.

MSNBCs Joe Scarborough tweeted that Republicans on the Hill were panicked behind the scenes by Trumps performance. Fox News chief anchor Shepard Smith called Trumps allegations against the media absolutely crazy. CNNanchor Jake Tapper judged his performance unhinged and wild. One unnamed Republican senator texted CNNs John King: He should do this with a therapist, not on live television.

Donald Trump speaks as Vice President Mike Pence looks at the Congress of Tomorrow Republican Member Retreat on January 26 in Philadelphia. Dean Falvy writes that Trumps marathon press conference refocused attention on his mental competence and stability. Critics have never been shy about diagnosing Trump with various psychological conditions, the most popular being narcissistic-personality disorder. But many self-obsessed people are capable of functioning at a high level professionally, as Trump has for much of his life. But the astonishing achievement of reaching the presidency seems to have aggravated Trumps insecurities and grievances, to the point where mental illness has become the elephant in the White House Situation Room. Alex Wong/Getty

While the Russia story isnt going away, Trumps press conference refocused attention on his own mental competence and stability. Critics have never been shy about diagnosing Trump with various psychological conditions, the most popular choice being narcissistic-personality disorder.

But many self-obsessed people are still capable of functioning at a high level professionally, as Donald Trump apparently has for much of his life. But the astonishing achievement of reaching the presidency seems to have aggravated Trumps insecurities and grievances, to the point where mental illness has become the elephant in the Situation Room.

Some mental health professionals have begun to overcome their reticence (and perhaps professional standards) to argue that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trumps speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.

Is the president able to distinguish between fact and fantasy? Can he absorb and process complex information? Does he have the capacity to make rational decisions? To many observers of his press conference, the answers were not reassuring.

Can anything be done about it? The answer to that question is not simple either.

The Twenty-fifthAmendment provides a process for the president to declare himself unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. In that case, the vice president becomes the acting president until the president recovers from his disability.

This is simple enough when the president is aware of an upcoming medical procedure and voluntarily invokes the Twenty-fifth Amendment for a limited period of time, as President Reagan and President George W. Bush did on three separate occasions. But what if the president is so physically or mentally disabledas to be unable to recognize or acknowledge his own disability?

As I discussed in a previous article on Trumps chances of completing his term, Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides an involuntary procedure allowing the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to notify the leaders of Congress that the president is disabled. In that case, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

This assures continuity of government if the president falls victim to a sudden illness. But if the president recoversor disputes the existence of a disability at allhe can attempt to reclaim his office by informing Congress. This will happen automatically, unless the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet provide a further declaration to Congress within four days that the president remains disabled.

If that happens, Congress must convene and make a high-stakes decision: Who is entitled to exercise the powers of the presidency, the president or the vice president?

But the president has a clear advantage in this contest: He will regain his powers unless the House and the Senate each confirm his disability by two-thirds majorities. To put it in the simplest terms, the support of either 34 senators or 145 members of the House would be sufficient to restore power to an allegedly disabled president.

In the case of physical disability, invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment is likely to be straightforward. In most cases, an inability to communicate will signal the presidents disability, and the restoration of communication will mark the end of it.

Mental disability is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is not necessary to argue that the president is insane in a legal or clinical sensethe constitutional standard is simply whether he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.

What if a president performs his duties, but does so erratically and irrationally? And if the president loudly insists that he is capable, will the vice president and Cabinet dare invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment, even if they are privately convinced that he is not?

As long as he retains the loyalty of a substantial minority in either the House or Senate, the president can turn the tables on his scheming lieutenants and reclaim his office. Once restored to his powers, the president can (and certainly would) dismiss the Cabinet members who doubted his capacity.

While the vice president cannot be removed from office, he can be sidelined and humiliated in countless ways until his term is over. And that assumesthe president would not seek even more extreme forms of vengeance.

Under these circumstances, the vice president and Cabinet may fear usingthe Twenty-fifth Amendment to constrain an unbalanced president until his madness has put the nation in serious peril. Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Collecting the required signatures on a declaration of disability from a majority of the Cabinet would be no simple task for Vice President Pence. He would have to do so under the nose of President Trump and his watchful staff.

Pence and his allies would have to act before any sympathetic Cabinet members are dismissed for suspected disloyalty. Any attempt by Pence or the Cabinet to consult with Congress in advance to ensure support would likely blow the secrecy of the operation and leave it dead in the water.

But Congress can act on its own to give Pence and the Cabinet the assurance they need to proceed. For example, Congress could pass a resolution, by a two-thirds vote in each House, urging the invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. This would largely remove the threat that a declaration of disability would be reversed. Pence and the Cabinet could then relieve the president of his duties without much fear that Trump could recapture power within days or weeks.

There are several downsides to this approach, however. The need for prolonged debate in Congress over such a resolution would give President Trump and his supporters an opportunity to take countermeasures. He could threaten members of his party in Congress and extract declarations of fealty from the Cabinet. Individuals suspected of disloyalty could be isolated from the herd and subjected to intense pressure.

Vice President Pence would almost surely have to go on the record as opposing the resolution. This would make it awkward, to say the least, for Pence and the Cabinet to turn around and invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment after its passage. Even more dangerously, if the resolution failed to gain a two-thirds majority in the Senate orHouse, the Twenty-fifth Amendment would essentially be deactivated as an option. Invoking it wouldnt just be risky for Pence and his cohortsit would border on political suicide.

However, there is a more subtle waythat Congress can choose to smooth the path for a declaration of disability. Individual members of Congress could send private letters to Vice President Pence, giving him confidence of support in the event of a Twenty-fifth Amendment showdown. Such a letter might look something like this:

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Vice President Pence:

Based on President Trumps public statements and conduct in office, I have grave and increasing concerns about his capacity to perform the duties of the presidency.

If you and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments determine that President Trump is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, I will give substantial weight to that determination in the event that Congress is required to decide the issue in accordance with Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

This letter will remain valid unless and until I revoke it in writing to you. You may disclose the existence of this letter on a confidential basis to members of the Cabinet. You may release it publicly as you see fit in the event that Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is invoked.

Such a letter would respect the separation of powers on two points. First, it would recognize that the vice president and the Cabinet (rather than Congress) must initiate the involuntary disability procedure. Second, by only promising to give substantial weight to their determination, it would preserve the power given to Congress by the Twenty-fifth Amendment to act as a check against usurpation of power by the vice president and the Cabinet.

Most importantly, such an approach would allow members of Congress to remain out of Trumps line of fire until a critical mass has been achieved. At the same time, it would shield Pence and the Cabinet from the impossibly delicate task of lining up support before invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

The vice president, as the presiding officer of the Senate, maintains an office on Capitol Hill. Members of Congress could deliver their confidential letters there, where Pence would store them in a safe until needed, away from the prying eyes of the White House staff. The letters could even be handwritten, in order to avoid leaving digital tracks on congressional computer systems.

Once assured of sufficient support in Congress, especially from its GOP contingent, Vice President Pence would still need to persuade a majority of the Cabinet to support a declaration of presidential disability. This could be a formidable task. But doing so would be much easier with the knowledgeand, if necessary, the proofthat the declaration is very unlikely to be overturned by Congress.

With the outcome of any contested vote in Congress more or less assured, Acting President Pence would also have less to fear from extralegal resistance by President Trump. With little prospect of his powers being restored by legal means, Trump would find it hard to convince loyalists and waverers within the government to risk dismissal or prosecution by obeying his orders instead of Pences.

All this can be done by members of Congress at little risk to themselves. They can avoid taking a public stance on Trumps mental capacity until a critical mass has gathered and Pence has made his move. If, on the other hand, the movementto invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment fails to gather sufficient steam in Congress, any letters received can quietly remainin Mike Pences care and disposed of at the end of his term.

If Trump resigns, or is impeached and removed from office for some other reason, the effort would become a historical footnote. And if Trump steadies himself in office and somehow dispels doubts about his mental fitness? Well, that would be the biggest surprise yet from a relentlessly astonishing man.

Unless that happens, the Twenty-fifth Amendment will be on the mind of every member of Congresswhether they admit it or notuntil the day Donald Trump relinquishes the presidency. Perhaps they will sleep better at night having placed their trust safely in the vice presidents hands. Whether Mike Pence will sleep well with that knowledge is a question for another day.

Dean Falvy is an attorney with an international business practice. He teaches constitutional law, international business transactions and other subjects at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle.

Read this article:

How Congress Can Remove an Unstable President - Newsweek - Newsweek

Judge: No, feds can’t nab all Apple devices and try everyone’s … – Ars Technica

GLENN CHAPMAN/AFP/Getty Images

This prosecution, nearly all of which remains sealed, is one of a small but growing number of criminal cases that pit modern smartphone encryption against both the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and also the Fifth Amendment right to avoidself-incrimination. According to the judges opinion, quoting from a still-sealed government filing, "forced fingerprinting" is part of a broader government strategy, likely to combat the prevalence of encrypted devices.

Last year, federal investigators sought a similar permission to force residents of two houses in Southern California to fingerprint-unlock a seized phone in a case that also remains sealed. In those cases, and likely in the Illinois case as well, the prosecutors' legal analysis states that there is no Fifth Amendment implication at play. Under the Constitution, defendants cannot be compelled to provide self-incriminating testimony (what you know). However, traditionally, giving a fingerprint (what you are) for the purposes of identification or matching to an unknown fingerprint found at a crime scene has been allowed. It wasnt until relatively recently, however, that fingerprints could be used to unlock a smartphone.

However, unlike the California warrant applications, this case doesnt involve one particular seized device to check to see if anyones fingerprint unlocks it. Rather, authorities seem to be using the particular fact that most modern Apple iPhones and iPads can be unlocked and decrypted if Touch ID is enabled. While some Android devices also have a similar fingerprint scanning function, the warrant application (which remains sealed) apparently only sought out Apple devices. (Under both operating systems, the fingerprint unlock stops working after your phone has been unlocked for 48 hours.)

As the judge, who is both a former federal prosecutor and a former FBI special agent,wrote:

The request is made without any specific facts as to who is involved in the criminal conduct linked to the subject premises, or specific facts as to what particular Apple-branded encrypted device is being employed (if any).

First, the Court finds that the warrant does not establish sufficient probable cause to compel any person who happens to be at the subject premises at the time of the search to give his fingerprint to unlock an unspecified Apple electronic device.

This Court agrees that the context in which fingerprints are taken, and not the fingerprints themselves, can raise concerns under the Fourth Amendment. In the instant case, the government is seeking the authority to seize any individual at the subject premises and force the application of their fingerprints as directed by government agents. Based on the facts presented in the application, the Court does not believe such Fourth Amendment intrusions are justified based on the facts articulated.

Neither the Department of Justice nor the FBI immediately responded to Ars request for comment. Prosecutors could seek to appeal the opinion to a more senior judge.

"As I read the opinion, the government relies on old fingerprinting cases to argue that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments dont stand in the way of what they are seeking to do here," Abraham Rein, a Philadelphia-based tech lawyer, told Ars by e-mail.

"But (as the court points out) there is a big difference between using a fingerprint to identify a person and using one to gain access to a potentially vast trove of data about them and possibly about innocent third parties, too. The old fingerprinting cases arent really good analogs for this new situation. Same is true with old cases about using keys to unlock lockshere, were not talking about a key but about part of a persons body."

Orin Kerr, a well-known privacy and tech law expert and a professor at George Washington University, told Ars that the judge had largely reached the right result, but only on Fourth Amendment, and specifically not Fifth Amendment grounds.

"I just think that it's really clear that [fingerprints are] not testimonialbecause youre not using your brain," he said. "It cant be testimonial if you can cut their finger off."

Similarly, Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney and former Homeland Security official, argued that its essentially impossible for a fingerprint, even a digital fingerprint, to have any Fifth Amendment implications.

"We could have gone down the road of saying that providing physical evidence is testimony against yourself," he said. "But we long ago made the decision that the Fifth Amendment applied to testimony, and testimony meant only oral utterances or other things that conveyed a message. For this distinction lies at the core of Breathalyzer tests. If we roll that back, Breathalyzer tests go out the window. Blowing your air would be testifying against yourself."

Riana Pfefferkorn, one of the lawyers who first found this judicial opinion and publicized it on Twitter, told Ars that part of the problem with these types of cases is that this cutting edge of judicial analysis is largely happening "outside the public eye."

"In many instances, there may be little or no legal analysis by the court when it approves a request for a search warrant or other court order," she wrote. "Examples like this may be the tip of an iceberg. I hope that more judges will join this Illinois judge in not only conducting a thorough legal analysis of novel requests for gathering electronic evidence, but also publishing those opinions publicly."

Yet another lawyer suggested that cases like this would push companies like Apple to harden their devices even further: rather than allow a simple fingerprint to unlock a phone, future versions of its software will likely require a fingerprint or other biometric in combination with a traditional passcode.

"I think we will see authentication systems evolve with these kinds of mass searches (not to mention border searches and the like) as a new part of the threat model of unauthorized access," Blake Reid, a law professor at the University of Colorado, told Ars. "An additional risk of what the government is doing here is creating incentives for manufacturers to design authentication systems that are less susceptible from a technical and architectural perspective to these types of searches."

Follow this link:

Judge: No, feds can't nab all Apple devices and try everyone's ... - Ars Technica

Keith Ellison’s comments on the Second Amendment: For the record – Washington Post

CNNs Dana Bash: Congressman. Gun control. In 2014, you told Bill Maher that you wished the Democratic Party would come out against the Second Amendment. How do you reach out to Americans who support gun rights when you dont support the Second Amendment?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.): First of all, let me tell you I remember that show very well, and that is not what I said at all. What I talked about is my grandfathers shotgun, the fact that I am a turkey hunter, and I didnt say that. That was not an accurate statement. []

Bash: Congressman, I just want to read you since you said that that wasnt what you said, Ill read you exactly what happened. Bill Maher: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem. Your response: I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.

Ellison: I wish youd play the tape, because if you did youd see that it did not go that way. But the real point is this, this country absolutely, I am for the right to bear arms, but I am not for these massive murders that happen all over this country every day. exchange during CNN debate with candidates for Democratic National Committee leadership, Feb. 22, 2017

During the debate on CNN, Ellison denied making comments about the Second Amendment during a March 2014 interview on Real Time with Bill Maher. We were curious to know exactly what he said during the interview, and whether he was being truthful in his response to Bash.

Since Ellison said to check the clips, we did. We found that the answer is not really clear, so we decided to present the comments in full for our readers.

The exchange in question begins around the four-minute mark in the video below. (A higher-quality video is here.)

Earlier in the clip, Ellison talks about family members who own guns and go hunting, and says that he is for gun control, but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules.

Later, Maher asks: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem.

The crowd laughs, and then Sheila Bair, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., interjects. She seems to say: Fifty-one votes, thats all it takes. The crowd, Bair and Ellison all laugh. Ellison then says: I sure wish they would, I sure wish they would.

Ellisons campaign staff says his answer was a reference to Bairs comment, and not an answer to Mahers question.

Bair, through a spokesman, said the vote she was referring to was the nomination of former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. At the time of this interview, Murthy had been waiting for confirmation for 16 months and could not get the 51 votes in the Senate to get confirmed. She thinks that nomination started the conversation [about gun control]. But it was a long time ago, her spokesman said.

Murthys nomination had been in limbo, partly because of opposition from the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association had called him a serious threat to the rights of gun owners because Murthy supported stricter gun control laws:

Even moderate Senate Democrats from states with strong gun cultures opposed Murthy. At the time of the Maher interview, the White House was considering withdrawing Murthys troubled nomination, after it became clear moderate Democrats up for reelection would not support Murthy because of his stance on gun control.

Heres a transcript:

Sheila Bair: Im a Republican and Im for gun control. I just want to be its not monolithic. Keith Ellison: Well, Im for gun control, too. Let me just say, Im for gun control but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules. Bair: No, you dont. Ellison: I mean, 27 children were mowed down. Isnt that enough for us? One of our colleagues, [former congresswoman] Gabby Giffords, shot in the face. Maher: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem. [Crosstalk] Ellison: Bill Bair: Fifty-one votes, thats all it takes. [Laughter] Ellison: I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would. Maher: Really? Ellison: Yeah. Maher: Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic Party say that. But they say, I am also a strong supporter. Ellison: You have got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.

After some back-and-forth with Maher, Ellison later says: You cant solve the problem with just one little thing. Youve got to make sure that the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] can issue reports on gun killings and handgun violence. Youve got to make sure that we can get rid of assault weapons. Youve got to close the loophole at gun shows. Youve got to do a whole range of things to get us into a sane place. Weve got 12,000 handgun murders a year. Its got to stop.

Its not entirely clear whether Ellison really was talking about Murthys nomination, the Second Amendment or votes on gun-control measures in general. But it is clear throughout the interview that Ellison says he supports both gun-control measures and the rights of gun owners. At one point, he says he is for gun control, but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules.

Of course, supporters of gun rights likely would consider the measures Ellison proposes as effectively gutting Second Amendment rights. Still, there seems to be more going on in the conversation that is not immediately clear in the transcripts that Dana Bash read during the debate. A constitutional amendment that would have nullified the Second Amendment would requirea two-thirds vote by the House and Senate, and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. So Bairs interjection of 51 votes makes it likely that theexchange was alluding to Murthys confirmation, rather than a constitutional amendment.

Given the murky information at hand, we will not rate this claim. We welcome readers to reach their own conclusions.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Read more:

Keith Ellison's comments on the Second Amendment: For the record - Washington Post

Georgia Rep. Lumsden: The Second Amendment is a Right, NOT a Privilege – Bearing Arms

On Monday, February 20, the Georgia House Public Safety and Homeland SecurityCommittees were scheduled tobegin to review a number of important gun bills.

Georgia StateRepresentativeEddie Lumsden, R-Rome, a retired State Trooper who sits on these committees, said:These are somemodified bills, after having conversations with the governor.

In their current state, he expects them to be more acceptable.

HB 280would allow people with their Georgia Weapons License (GWL) to carry concealed on all property owned or leased by a public institution of post-secondary education. There are minimal exemptions, sports facilities, student housing including sororities and frat houses, and campus preschools. Rep. Lumsden, who is in favor of this bill, points to the Second Amendment in part, for his support of the right to carry on college campuses.

HB 292 would impact Georgia gun laws in several positive and important ways, including:

HB 406aims totarget reciprocity between states and will affect Virginia reciprocity directly throughits code changes.

Most conservatives dont believe its wise of government to require training because this is a right, not a privilege, said Representative Eddie Lumsden. We all believe it would be a good thing, if youre going to carry a weapon, you be trained in its use. But this gets into constitutional questions.

If you live in Georgia, contact yourlegislatorson both committees and let them know how you feel about these bills.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

See the rest here:

Georgia Rep. Lumsden: The Second Amendment is a Right, NOT a Privilege - Bearing Arms

Tyler Morning Telegraph – Editorial: Second Amendment rights aren … – Tyler Morning Telegraph

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to war with the U.S. Supreme Courts Heller decision, and its reasoning is both troubling and erroneous. Essentially, the court says Americans have no inherent right to own vaguely defined assault weapons.

That ruling, if later upheld by a post-Scalia Supreme Court, would gut the Second Amendment - which was never about hunting.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment doesnt protect assault weapons - an extraordinary decision keenly attuned to the brutal havoc these firearms can wreak, writes Slate magazine. Issued by the court sitting en banc, Tuesdays decision reversed a previous ruling in which a panel of judges had struck down Marylands ban on assault weapons and detachable large capacity magazines.

The majority opinion begins with an appeal to emotion, by citing a list of recent shootings. It then goes on to invent an entirely new test for Second Amendment policy - whether guns or devices have a military purpose.

Whatever their other potential, the court wrote, such weapons are unquestionably most useful in military service. That is, the banned assault weapons are designed to kill or disable the enemy on the battlefield.

These military combat features have a capability for lethality - more wounds, more serious, in more victims - far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.

As Slate sums up, the AR-15 is a weapon of war, not the tool of self-defense envisioned by the Heller court, and therefore can and should be regulated.

Thats flawed reasoning, says Daniel Horowitz in the Conservative Review.

The notion that any common weapon can be banned violates the inalienable right to self-defense, which predated the Second Amendment, he writes. It is a natural right. Yet, given that we live in a world where rights come from the Supreme Court, we should at least ensure that lower courts properly read the text of the Heller decision.

He quotes Justice Scalia, who wrote that majority opinion: A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

The Fourth Circuit says its balancing interests - the right of self-defense versus public safety. That, too, is flawed, Horowitz contends.

There is no government interest balancing for perceived benefits of public safety that can justify the infringement upon the right to self-defense for any commonly held weapon used for lawful purposes, he writes.

And thats clearly laid out in Heller.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution, that decision reads. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

The Fourth Circuit was wrong in its reasoning and in its ruling.

More:

Tyler Morning Telegraph - Editorial: Second Amendment rights aren ... - Tyler Morning Telegraph

Donald Trump: The First Amendment Gives Me The Right To Criticize ‘Fake News’ – Huffington Post

President Donald Trumpcriticized the media again on Friday while speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

Trump claimed it was wrongly reported that hecalled the media the enemy of the people last week, saying hed actually called fake news the enemy. But he has branded such reputable media outlets as the The New York Times, CNN, NBC and others fake news.

The president argued that the First Amendment gives him the right to criticize fake news and criticize it strongly.

[The media] say that we cant criticize their dishonest coverage because of the First Amendment, Trump said.

I love the First Amendment. Nobody loves it better than me, he added.

Trump also said he thinks news outlets should not use anonymous sources, despite using them himself to make claims that have been proven false.

The presidents comments were likely a thinly veiled jab atCNN. The news outlet recently wrote that the FBI had rejected a White House request to dispute reports that Trumps campaign team had contacted Russian officials prior to the election.

Trumps war with the media is going to get worse, Trump adviser Steve Bannon said Thursday at CPAC.

Every day is going to be a fight, Bannon said.

Read more:

Donald Trump: The First Amendment Gives Me The Right To Criticize 'Fake News' - Huffington Post

Trump Praises First Amendment, Calls for Media Suppression and Fewer Protests – New York Magazine

A man who loves free speech more than you do. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

On Friday, president Trump said that the media shouldnt be allowed to cite anonymous sources because Americas most respected newspapers routinely make up such sources, and publish stories of their own invention. He reiterated his contention that fake news outlets like the New York Times, NBC News, ABC News, CBS, and CNN are the enemy of the people, and suggested that Americans should not protest their government in between elections.

The president also said, I love the First Amendment nobody loves it more than me.

Trump and his administration have been waging a war on objective reality and those tasked with describing it from the moment he was sworn in. In his first appearance as White House press secretary, Sean Spicer demanded that reporters believe the presidents estimate of the size of his inaugural crowd over their own lying eyes. As Trumps tumultuous (and not terribly productive) first month in office progressed, he grew ever more preoccupied with discrediting the Fourth Estate.

On Thursday, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Steve Bannon and Reince Preibus instructed the audience not to believe any negative news they read about the administration, over and over again. By the end of their conversation, the word media had been spoken 19 times, and the phrase opposition party, Bannons favorite synonym for the mainstream press, six times.

It wasnt terribly surprising, then, that the president opened his remarks to CPAC with a long diatribe against the media. But Trumps speech did represent a significant escalation in his crusade against independent journalism.

Previously, the president had criticized the press for printing illegal leaks from anonymous government officials and suggested that those officials have often shared false information. But hed never before claimed that major newspapers were fabricating sources out of whole cloth and presenting works of fictions as reportage.

The leaks are real. Youre the one that wrote about them and reported them, I mean, the leaks are real, Trump told reporters at a press conference last Thursday. You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real.

As of Friday morning, the president still maintained that the anonymous officials quoted in the media were genuine members of the government.

But hours later Trump suggested that reporters cant find actual government officials to leak to them, and thus are forced to invent them.

A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people. And they are. They are the enemy of the people, Trump said. Because they have no sources, they just make em up when there are none Im against the people that make up stories and make up sources.

The people that make up stories ostensibly includes all of the major outlets listed in this recent tweet.

Late Thursday night, the Trump administration admitted that it had encouraged the FBI to anonymously leak exculpating information about the presidents relationship with Russia. On Friday morning, Trump declared, They shouldnt be allowed to use sources unless they use somebodys name They should put the name of the person. You will see stories dry up like youve never seen before.

Then, after briefly praising the First Amendment, the president said that media doesnt represent the people, and were going to do something about it.

Trumps only substantive argument for why his audience shouldnt trust the media was that most of these outlets pre-election polling suggested that he would not win. He then credited the Los Angeles Times poll for its singular accuracy. That poll predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, making it one of the least accurate national polls of the 2016 cycle.

But in the presidents telling, fake news outlets and skewed pollsters arent the only ones who have been abusing their First Amendment rights the other enemies of the American people are the American people who didnt vote for Donald Trump.

Referring to the town hall protests in support of Obamacare, Trump said, The people that youre watching, theyre not you. Theyre largely many of them are the side that lost, you know they lost the election. Its like, how many elections do we have to have?

The election is over. The worlds biggest fan of the First Amendment won. So, if you voted against him, its time to shut up.

This Obscure News Story, Which Should Be Huge, Shows How Trump Gets Away With Corruption

Connie Britton Leaves Nashville Fans With the Cold Comfort of a Heartfelt Coda After That Momentous Episode

Trumps Counterterrorism Adviser Sebastian Gorka Has Links to Anti-Semitic Groups

A small dip from 2015, but the third-straight yearly decline under Vision Zero.

Former Kentucky governor Steve Beshear is an out-of-work centrist representing a party thats energized on the left.

A leaked document shows House Republicans mulling controversial ideas like ending Medicaid as we know it and a new tax on employer-provided insurance.

It says citizenship in the Muslim-majority countries included in the ban is an unlikely indicator of a terrorism threat.

Dont feel bad for Paul Ryan, hell end up getting a big tax cut for the rich in the end.

Its been a hot month, with nearly 4,500 record highs set, compared to 29 record lows.

The White House denied any links to President Trumps rhetoric.

Earlier in the day, Trump explained that the media isnt the enemy of the people but the fake news media is.

Kevin Hassett once co-authored a book imploring investors to enter the stock market just before the dot-com bubble burst.

Is the mainstream right ready to replace its traditional values with pure nationalism?

It looked like Attorney General Jeff Sessionss warm-up act in loosening protections for all minorities.

The president told CPAC the media shouldnt be allowed to cite anonymous sources, and suggested people shouldnt protest after an election.

We will not answer to donors, lobbyists, or special interests now heres another story about me answering to special interests.

This may be the lowlight of a week that also saw him make an unhinged phone call to a critic that got recorded and published.

This isnt the first time the president has appeared to advocate for nuclear proliferation.

The White House asked the FBI to leak exculpating details about Trumps ties with Russia. It leaked the details of that conversation instead.

The Republican Partys best chance to repeal Obamacare is already gone.

In this weeks diary on life in Trumps America: Signs of hope or, at least, some tempering of the crazy; and Moonlights beautiful appropriation.

They were searching for an undocumented immigrant, who wasnt on the flight.

The poison is highly toxic, and its unclear how his attackers avoided becoming seriously ill.

See more here:

Trump Praises First Amendment, Calls for Media Suppression and Fewer Protests - New York Magazine

They make up sources – VICE News

President Trump gave a vigorous defense of the First Amendment in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday morning and invoked his right to free speech to bash the fake news media.

Nobody loves the First Amendment more than me, Trump told the crowd at the annual convention, held outside Washington, D.C. But [the media] never will represent the people, and were going to do something about it, he added ambiguously.

Trump criticized journalists for using anonymous sources in news stories that caused turmoil in the early days of his administration. Several recent stories quoting anonymous officials forced the resignation of Trumps national security adviser, Michael Flynn, when they revealed that Flynn had discussed economic sanctions with the Russian ambassador before taking office. Trump has repeatedly accused members of the intelligence community of leaking information to the press, as he did again Friday morning on Twitter.

Even if there are real leakers, Trump maintained that journalists make up sources. They have no sources, he said. If the sources are real, theymustbe named, he demanded.

The morning CPAC crowd whooped at the presidents attacks on the Fourth Estate, and Trump continued. The president criticized polls from CBS, ABC, NBC, and the Clinton News Network (or CNN), which brought more whoops of delight. When Hillary Clinton came up a second time, some of the crowd indulged in a Lock her up chant.

Red Make America Great Again hats dotted the sea of blue and black sport coats filling the ballroom wall-to-wall. In years past, Trump enjoyed a smallbutfervent fan base at CPAC but the young, grassroots conservative crowd tended to cheer loudest for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian favorite, or for Sen. Ted Cruz, a champion of conservatives. Skepticism of Trump ran so hot last year during the presidential campaign that he skipped the 2016CPAC, prompting Cruz and other GOP primary opponents to lambast him for the snub.

But Trump returned to CPAC Friday a happy, boastful warrior. He pledged that he would oversee one of the greatest military buildups in American history. He declared that the Republican Party will now be the party of the American worker, in seeming contrast to past Republican orthodoxy that highlighted business executives and entrepreneurs.

America is coming back and its roaring and you can hear it, Trump said. Its going to be bigger and better and stronger than ever before.

Read the original here:

They make up sources - VICE News

Top 5 Cryptocurrencies Under Development By Central Banks The … – The Merkle

In most cases, imitation is the ultimate form of flattery. For Bitcoin, that is not always the case, even though many projects aim to imitate the cryptocurrencys success to date. Various central banks are working on creating their own cryptocurrencies, none of which are decentralized or subject to a free market. Below is a list of such coins which may see the light of day sooner than people think.

As the name would suggest, Citicoin aims to become a bitcoin rival developed by none other than Citibank. Citigroup claims they have built this digital currency based on blockchain technology, although most of the specifics remain unclear to this very day. Judging by the name, it appears Citicoin will only be usable for internal transaction between customers of this particular bank. That has not been confirmed by Citigroup, albeit not much has been heard from this project since July of 2015.

When this collaborative project between UBS, Deutsche Bank, Santander, and Bank of New York Mellon was announced in 2016, the world was taken a bit by storm. Four of the worlds largest banks openly admitted they envy bitcoin and its technology. All four institutions have been researching the technology and decided to create their own cryptocurrency, going by the name of Utility Settlement Coin.

Considering how all of these banks are a member of the R3 blockchain consortium, the move to develop their own cryptocurrency seems a bit strange. Then again it is believed the Utility Settlement Coin project will launch in 2018, albeit no specific date has been announced so far. It remains to be seen if such a project can survive and what type of blockchain it will use, though.

Not to be confused with the previous entry, SETLcoin is a project developed by the Goldman Sachs Group. A patent for SETLcoin was filed back in 2014, which labels it as a cryptographic currency for securities settlement. This type of cryptocurrency will not be a competitor to bitcoin by any means, as it focuses on one specific niche. Goldman Sachs wants to facilitate the exchange of assets over a peer-to-peer network, yet its capabilities are seemingly limited at this point.

The Bank of England, together with various computer scientists, feel they have cracked the code to dethrone bitcoin as the top cryptocurrency. Under the RsCoin banner, the cryptocurrency will be used for P2P transactions all over the world. It would allow the BoE to keep a tight grip on the money supply and would no longer allow for the creation of money out of thin air. Then again, with no fixed coin supply, value can still be created out of nothing. An intriguing type of cryptocurrency to keep an eye on.

One of the more worrisome cryptocurrency projects in development goes by the name of RMBCoin. This cryptocurrency, developed by the Peoples Bank of Chinaaims tobecome the new national digital currency in time. However, users will not have full control over their digital wallet, similar to how bank accounts are not controlled by the customer either. Not much else is known about RMBCoin, as there is no white paper, release date, or comprehensive list of specifications available today.

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 article here:

Top 5 Cryptocurrencies Under Development By Central Banks The ... - The Merkle

BitConnect Cryptocurrency Exhibits Steady Growth – newsBTC

BitConnect, the young cryptocurrency is showing steady growth within a month of its successful ICO. BitConnect Coin (BCC)is following on the path of the crypto heavyweights like Bitcoin and Ethereum as it showcases significant growth within the digital altcoin community. It continues the trend of the exponential rise as set by the two cryptocurrencies since 2015. The upcoming feature additions to BCC throughout 2017 are further expected to boost its value.

BitConnect coin is an open source, peer-to-peer, community driven decentralized cryptocurrency that allows people to store and invest their wealth in a non-government controlled currency, and even earn a substantial interest on investment.

BCC has experienced few ups and downs since the completion of BCCs initial launch following the ICO. There was a drop in its demand and value soon after its release as is the case for any new digital or physical product. Being a cryptocurrency that is providing real value to the market, BCC has recovered to emerge bigger and stronger than ever.

BCCs chart shows a more than two-fold increase in its price during the recent weeks. Due to an increase in the BitConnect Coin mining activity, the cryptocurrency platform had to increase its mining difficulty to levels much higher than that of any other scrypt-based coin in the altcoin market. Consequently, the exchange volume has been exhibiting significant growth in anticipation of the new features that are going to be included later this month.

The BCC cryptocurrencys demand and price are expected to further increase as the platform prepares to launch the much awaited BitConnect application for Android and iOS devices. The latter half of the year will also see the cryptocurrency undergoing more innovation and also the inclusion of new convenience features. The BCC mining process will stop yielding new coins by the end of 2017.

BitConnect Coin connects its users socially and financially to a secure, protected community of investors and lenders. BCC owners can also connect with the community to increase the value in their respective wallets as the cryptocurrencys price increases. They also get an opportunity to earn interest.

BitConnect hasbecome the worlds fastest growing online Bitcoin community. It has risen from being a concept in Q1 of 2016 to a top 100K website on Alexa in less than one year.

Original post:

BitConnect Cryptocurrency Exhibits Steady Growth - newsBTC

More bang for your Bitcoin as cryptocurrency hits record high price – Computer Business Review

Add to favorites

Bitcoin defies the doubters and climbs to $1,186, marking a new price record.

Bitcoin has reached a new record high price of $1,186, surpassing the previous all-time high reached during the Bitcoin-mania of 2013.

After Bitcoin reached the previous record high price of $1,165, the price plummeted to half the figure when Mt. Gox, one of the most substantial Bitcoin exchanges shutdown.

The closure of the exchange came about following the loss of hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin at the expense of its users. After this point the price of the digital currency has been continuously unstable.

Bitcoin was stabilised at $250 in 2015, and has increased at a consistent, steady rate since this point. One month ago Bitcoin was trading at $885, and at $736 the month prior.

The price began to pick up more rapidly following the devaluation of the Yuan due to India and Chinas removal of high valuation bank notes.

One of the most influential factors behind the growing price of Bitcoin has been the election of President Donald Trump.

Comparable to Brexit, the election of Trump brought uncertainty to the market and led to the reaction of moving money into Bitcoins. The reason that this action was taken is because Bitcoin is uncorrelated from other capital market assets

The awareness of digital currencies has also grown in recent times, with financial services pursuing the implementation of fintech such as Bitcoin and Blockchain. Mark Carney spoke recently on the future of the financial services, and the transformative impact that fintech is likely to have.

Bitcoins profile has also been raised by recent news surrounding cyber security, in which ransomware is being used increasingly to charge victims sums of money in Bitcoin

Original post:

More bang for your Bitcoin as cryptocurrency hits record high price - Computer Business Review

Things you need to know | Bitcoin The Internet of Money

No Central Command

Bitcoin isnt owned by anyone. Think of it like email. Anyone can use it, but there isnt a single company that is in charge of it. Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. This means that no one, including banks, or governments can block you from sending or receiving bitcoins with anyone else, anywhere in the world. With this freedom comes the great responsibility of not having any central authority to complain to if something goes wrong. Just like physical cash, dont let strangers hold your bitcoins for you, and dont send them to untrustworthy people on the internet.

There are several different types of Bitcoin wallets, but the most important distinction is in relation to who is in control of the private keys required to spend the bitcoins. Some Bitcoin wallets actually act more like banks because they are holding the users private keys on behalf. If you choose to use one of these services, be aware that you are completely at their mercy regarding the security of your bitcoins. Most wallets, however, allow the user to be in charge of their own private keys. This means that no one in the entire world can access your account without your permission. It also means that no one can help you if you forget your password or otherwise lose access to your private keys. If you decide you want to own a lot of Bitcoin it would be a good idea to divide them among several different wallets. As they saying goes, dont put all your eggs in one basket.

Like everything, Bitcoins price is determined by the laws of supply and demand. Because the supply is limited to 21 million bitcoins, as more people use Bitcoin the increased demand, combined with the fixed supply, will force the price to go up. Because the number of people using Bitcoin in the world is still relatively small, the price of Bitcoin in terms of traditional currency can fluctuate significantly on a daily basis, but will continue to increase as more people start to use it. For example, in early 2011 one Bitcoin was worth less than one USD, but in 2015 one Bitcoin is worth hundreds of USD. In the future, if Bitcoin becomes truly popular, each single Bitcoin will have to be worth at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to accommodate this additional demand.

There are several ways to buy Bitcoin, but trusted exchanges are a great way to acquire Bitcoin. Because there are inefficiencies in the traditional banking system, exchanges will sometimes have slightly different prices. If the difference is too great, traders will buy low on one an exchange and sell high on another and close the gap. If an exchange constantly has substantially different prices than others, it is a sign of trouble and that exchange should be avoided. As with everything else, do your research and find an exchange you can trust. Its also a good idea not to use an exchange as a wallet. Move your Bitcoin to your personal wallet so that you have control over your funds at all times. You can view our list of Bitcoin exchanges here.

Because all Bitcoin transactions are stored on a public ledger known as the blockchain, people might be able to link your identity to a transaction over time. Some companies offer various tools such as Bitcoin mixers to help achieve greater privacy, but it takes a huge amount of effort to use Bitcoin anonymously. You may want to follow your countrys tax regulations regarding Bitcoin in order to avoid trouble with the law, but you have the power not to should you choose to take that risk. To improve privacy, most newer Bitcoin wallets will use a new Bitcoin address each time someone sends bitcoins to you.

Bitcoin transactions are seen by the entire network within a few seconds and are usually recorded into Bitcoin's world wide ledger called the blockchain, in the next block. While its possible that a transaction wont be confirmed in the next block, in the vast majority of circumstances it is fine to accept a transaction as soon as it has been seen by the network. Unlike traditional payment systems, Bitcoin transactions are lightning fast and can be sent globally. Bitcoin is still relatively new, but with each passing day the technology becomes more reliable. It is more and more unlikely that a major bug will emerge in the system as time goes by, and people can trust the technology more with the passing of time. Each month people transact hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin.

Link:

Things you need to know | Bitcoin The Internet of Money

Bitcoin Refuses to Just Die Already

Bitcoin, somehow, continues to persist despite mounting evidence that its not the best use of your money. The digital cryptocurrency hit a record high on Thursday, trading above $1,200 according to several exchanges.

Financial experts have largely cast aside the web-based currency as a legitimate investment, calling it too volatile, too risky, and in some cases, a scam. The Financial Times also reported in 2015 that bitcoin has all of the attributes of a pyramid scheme. The cryptocurrency has long been embroiled in a history of fuck-ups and controversies, including a half-a-billion-dollar heist from the worlds largest bitcoin exchange in 2014.

It doesnt help that the currencys origin story is murky, too. Bitcoin was supposedly created by an unidentified programmer (or group of programmers) under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Although several news outlets have tried in the past to identify Nakamoto, the creator still remains unknown.

Invented in 2008, bitcoin has continually beat the odds as its value has consistently risen despite escalating criticism from wealth experts. According to a CNBC report, bitcoin performed better than any other currency in every year since 2010 apart from 2014, when it was the worst-performing currency. And, of course, its already been declared dead dozens of times.

So whats been propping up bitcoins value?

The currencys price saw a sharp uptick this week due to an increased amount of speculation that the first bitcoin ETF, an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, is closing in on approval from US regulators, according to recent CNBC and Bloomberg reports.

But as the New York Times reported last year, a small group of Chinese companies have effectively gained control of bitcoin, making it vulnerable to market manipulation. Add that on top of the fact that bitcoin exchanges are prone to collapsing (as they have in the past) and you have a digital currency that is, according to the Financial Times, essentially worthless. At least its good for entertainment.

Continue reading here:

Bitcoin Refuses to Just Die Already

Danish Police Surveil the Blockchain to … – news.bitcoin.com

Danish law enforcement have arrested drug traffickers after an investigation that included surveilling the blockchain, according to the regional publication Berlingske. The Danish polices cyber crime unit NC3 claim they have made arrests based on criminal activity tracked via bitcoin transactions.

Law enforcement officials are indeed working with blockchain surveillance software globally, and even warning against the use of digital currency mixers.

Also read:Basel Institute: Take Action Against Digital Currency Mixers/Tumblers

The chief of the Danish cyber crime unit, Kim Aarenstrup, has revealed authorities in the region created a tracking system that analyzes bitcoin transactions. Aarenstrup details the tool has helped police with two narcotics convictions. One arrest took place in January when Danish police arrested a young man for purchasing ketamine, cocaine, and amphetamines on darknet marketplaces. (DNM)

Bitcoin and virtual currency in general is used a lot for trafficking in weapons and drugs, ransom cases and extortion cases, Aarenstrup said. It has become a heavily used tool for criminals. We are pretty much unique in the world at this point because theyre not really any others who have managed to use these trails as evidence.

The Danish prosecutor who worked on the convictions, Jesper Klyve, explained their blockchain analysis worked because the drug traffickers had correlatedbitcoin transactions. Many services that offer bitcoin purchasing platforms follow strict KYC policies and buyers typically have to verify their identification.

Aarenstrup told the press the new blockchain surveillance system was ground-breaking.

The Danish cyber crime unit is not the only agency utilizing blockchain surveillance software to capture criminals. There are four known startups using bitcoin transaction analysis tools and collaborating with law enforcement worldwide. Companies utilizing blockchain surveillance software include Elliptic, Chainalysis, Numisight, and Skry. Both Elliptic and Chainalysis have been working with law enforcement agencies like the FBI, Interpol, Europol and KYC/AML platform providers.

Last summer, Chainalysis detailed that the company was working with global authorities to combat ransomware. Michael Gronager, CEO and co-founder of Chainalysis,said at the time, Expect to see some arrests soon as law enforcement agencies wrap up their investigations into several ransomware operations.

In January, the Basel Institute on Governance, Europol, Interpol, and officialsfrom Qatar warned against the use of bitcoin transaction mixers.

All countries are advised to take action against digital currency mixers/tumblers, theyexplained.

Alongside the rise of startups and law enforcement deploying blockchain surveillance, software developers are also creating privacy-centric transaction tools and concepts for Bitcoin. Ideas like Tumblebit, Schnorr signatures, confidential transactions, and other protocols are being developed. There are also in-production mixing services like Joinmarket, and anonymizing wallets like Samourai.

The privacy activists behind the Samourai wallet recently introduced features like Ricochet, and reusable payment codes. Samourai rebukes warnings made by bureaucrats and law enforcement against privacy-enhancing tools. In a recent blog post called The Bureaucrats Are Coming, the privacy-centric wallet developers explain they are ready to fight the state.

Samourai will not cower to these ivory tower elites We will actively work to destroy the effectiveness of any legislation or policy that is produced.

What do you think about law enforcement officials tracking bitcoin transactions? Let us know in the comments below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Danish Cyber Crime Unit, and Chainalysis.

Have you seen our new widget service? It allows anyone to embed informative Bitcoin.com widgets on their website. Theyre pretty cool and you can customize by size and color. The widgets include price-only, price and graph, price and news, forum threads. Theres also a widget dedicated to our mining pool, displaying our hash power.

Follow this link:

Danish Police Surveil the Blockchain to ... - news.bitcoin.com

Bitcoin hits 3-year peak, nears record high on U.S. ETF …

LONDON Digital currency bitcoin hit its highest levels in more than three years on Thursday and came within $3 of an all-time peak, on speculation that the first bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) is set to receive approval from the U.S. financial regulator.

Traditional financial players have largely shunned the web-based "cryptocurrency", viewing it as too volatile, complicated and risky, and doubting its inherent value.

Having already risen about 17 percent this year, it added 3 percent more on the day to hit $1,160 per bitcoin on Europe's Bitstamp exchange, just shy of an all-time high of $1,163 reached in November 2013 BTC=BTSP.

Some analysts say regulatory approval of a bitcoin ETF would make the currency relatively attractive to the often more cautious institutional investor market.

Three ETFs that track the value of bitcoin have been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for approval.

The SEC will decide by March 11 whether to approve one filed almost four years ago by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss. If approved, it would be the first bitcoin ETF issued and regulated by a U.S. entity.

"If approved this would certainly give a dramatic condoning of bitcoin by the authorities and powers that be," digital currency analytics firm Cryptocompare CEO, Charles Hayter, said.

"Perhaps key would be the institutional money which would flow into bitcoin. This would bring a certain amount of stability eventually but could see short-term exuberance by retail traders," he said.

Over the past year, bitcoin's biggest daily moves have been about 10 percent - very volatile compared with traditional currencies, but far lower than the daily swings of up to 40 percent seen in 2013.

Bitcoin climbed 125 percent in 2016, outperforming every other currency, as it did every year since 2010 bar 2014. The S&P 500 stock index rose 9.5 percent last year.

(Editing by Louise Ireland)

TOKYO Toshiba Corp , responding to media reports, said on Friday it was not aware that its U.S. nuclear unit Westinghouse was considering filing for Chapter 11 protection from creditors - an option analysts say could jeopardize the entire group.

Appliances and electronics retailer hhgregg Inc is preparing to file for bankruptcy as soon as next month, Bloomberg reported.

CHICAGO ADM Investor Services (ADMIS), a futures commission merchant owned by global grain trader Archer Daniels Midland Co, will begin executing more of its orders electronically beginning on March 1, the company said on Friday.

Read more here:

Bitcoin hits 3-year peak, nears record high on U.S. ETF ...

Bitcoin Tracker: Up, Up And Away? – PYMNTS.com

Share

Share

Share

Share

Email

Is there an alternative, profound French phrase or two that can describe what investors have seen this week with bitcoin? Because dj vu no longer seems to cut it.

Bitcoin is quickly headed toward fresh three-year highs after jumping up over $100 in value since last weeks tracker. After breaking through the $1,000 mark (again) at the beginning of February, bitcoin decided to stick around.

Though the cryptocurrency flirted with higher numbers, bitcoin mostly settled just above or below $1,000 for the first half of the month likely while investors waited to see how the whole Chinese exchange investigation storyline would pan out.

But now that the major exchanges have halted withdrawals for upgrades and it appears, at least for now, that no catastrophic changes to the crypto-status quo are coming from the PBoC its off to the races once again.

First, bitcoin has managed to stay above $1,000 for a record 10 days, leading some to speculate that the cryptocurrency could be developing a new, $1,000 price floor though it may still be too early to tell. The rise in value is likely due to speculation that the first bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) will, in fact, receive approval from the SEC.

On Thursday (Feb. 23) morning, bitcoin had broken $1,150 in value, reaching a high of $1,153.04. At the time of writing, bitcoins price sat at $1,149 even, up 2.39 percent over Wednesdays close. The bitcoin market cap was over $18.5 billion. The cryptocurrencys maximum value, reached on Nov. 30, 2013, was $1,165.89, according to CoinDesk.

In stateside bitcoin news, Coinsource, the largest network of bitcoin ATMs in the U.S., recently announced the placement of three new machines in St. Louis, Missouri, the companys first foray into the Midwestern market.

Including the three new machines, Coinsource now has 80 machines in nine U.S. states up from 73 when PYMNTS interviewed CMO Bobby Sharp this past December. Founded in Feb. 2015, Coinsource debuted its first kiosk in the Miracle Mile Shops in Las Vegas.

Coinsource CEO Sheffield Clark saidthe company hopes to have 100 machines installed in the U.S. by the end of Q1, adding: In 2016, we were installing bitcoin ATMs at an average of 1.2 machines per week. We hope to double that this year.

Locations on the radar for new Coinsource ATMs in 2017, according to Sharp, included in Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis.

By the end of 2017, I think we could potentially be in 1520 states, Sharp said. Possibly even a couple of other continents by 2018. We definitely have some company goals to explore outside the United States.

In addition to expanding into new markets, Coinsource has made it a goal to augment the functionality of its current and new machines in 2017. The company is looking to add more financial services and platforms, as well as to increase the number of two-way machines nationwide.

In the international market, the past few weeks have also seen a number of propositions and efforts by various global governments, financial regulatory bodies and other organizations to work toward bitcoin regulation.

The big news as of late has come out of the Philippines after the central bank, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), announced itwould actively regulate the bitcoin industry as a means to combat money laundering and terrorist financing schemes.

Earlier this month, the BSP published guidelines for entities that offer exchange services, including a registration requirement with both BSP and the nations anti-money laundering organization. Bitcoin exchanges will also be subject to annual fee services.

While not an endorsement of cryptocurrency by any means, the move is a step forward in the country of nearly 100 millionand could work to combat the seedier elements at work in the bitcoin ecosystem, while protecting consumers and increasing financial stability for citizens using the digital currency for legal payments and remittances.

Last month, the central bank and government of the United Arab Emirates had drawn up regulatory frameworks for FinTech and digital payments at large.

Additionally, The Cointelegraph reported that government officials and political leaders have also come together to discuss the potential of bitcoin and blockchain technologies for the future of the financial industry and ecosystem in the UAE.

Share

Share

Share

Share

Email

Originally posted here:

Bitcoin Tracker: Up, Up And Away? - PYMNTS.com