Ex-NSA contractor stole secrets for nearly two decades: feds New York Post The documents included sensitive NSA briefings and reports, including a 2009 draft of a signals intelligence directive that outlined methods and procedures for protecting the US and a 2014 report containing information on foreign cyber-intrusion ... |
Link:
Ex-NSA contractor stole secrets for nearly two decades: feds - New York Post
Microsoft announced that the NSA has cleared Windows 10 and the Surface tablet for classified use. The company also teased security improvements that will be discussed at the annual RSA Conference next week, where security experts from all over the world will gather.
Being cleared for classified use could help Microsoft do business with government agencies, independent contractors, and other groups that handle sensitive data. A place on the NSA's list of approved devices also gives Microsoft bragging rights--and the company put 'em to good use in its blog post:
Our customers are the most security-conscious in the world and demonstrating our commitment to meeting their needs is incredibly important to us. Today, Im excited to share that both Windows 10 and Surface devices including Surface Pro 3, Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book have been added to the NSAs Commercial Solutions for Classified Programs (CSfC) list. The CSfC program listing demonstrates Windows 10, as well as Surface devices (the only Windows 10 devices currently on the list), when used in a layered solution, can meet the highest security requirements for use in classified environments.
But that doesn't mean Microsoft is done battening down the hatches of its software and hardware. The company also teased a number of security improvements that have either recently debuted or are expected to be released this year. These include more control over devices via Surface Enterprise Management Mode (SEMM), expanded device management, and updates to Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection (WDATP), among others.
Many of those updates share a common goal: letting businesses use Windows 10 to control end points and defend against common threats. Microsoft said updates to SEMM will let companies disable a tablet's camera or microphone, for example, whereas updated Windows Analytics will let them know if software updates are being installed like they should be. To abuse the obvious pun--Windows is getting some bars, locks, and other reinforcements.
Microsoft also touted some of the operating system's existing features, such as Windows Hello, which allows people to sign in to their PC via facial recognition or fingerprint scan instead of a password. Combine that with a feature that automatically locks a PC when a paired smartphone leaves its vicinity--which is already available to Windows Insider program members--and Microsoft can help prevent careless mistakes on Windows 10 devices.
More information about these updates is available from Microsoft's blog post, and still more will be revealed in the days leading up to the RSA Conference that will run February 13-17. The bottom line is this: Windows 10 and Surface got a vote of confidence from the NSA, and over the next couple months, Microsoft will make it easier for businesses to manage their own security instead of relying on their employees' competence.
Read more from the original source:
Microsoft Gets NSA Approval For Windows 10 And Surface - Tom's Hardware
Joel K. Goldstein VIncent C. Immel Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
Fifty years ago today, Minnesota and Nevada ratified the proposed Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, providing the final support needed to make it part of our highest law. That Amendment was a significant accomplishment which created procedures to address some vexing problems regarding presidential continuity. And its enactment demonstrated how able and dedicated leadership can solve difficult problems, even those that had long resisted fixes.
Until 1967, the Constitution provided no means to fill a vice-presidential vacancy or to transfer power from a disabled president. Questions that Delawares John Dickinson asked at the Constitutional Convention (What is the extent of the term disability and who is to be the judge of it?) went unanswered for 175+ years. The problem was compounded after President William Henry Harrison died in April, 1841 and Vice President John Tyler claimed that he was president, not simply vice president acting as president as the founders intended. Tylers position was repeated seven times from 1841 to 1963 whenever a deceased president was replaced by his vice president. The Constitutions text treated the vice presidents status following a presidential inability the same as after a presidential death, removal or resignation. The Tyler Precedent inhibited vice presidents from exercising presidential responsibilities during presidential inabilities for fear of displacing the chief executive. So did the ideological, personal and constitutional distance between presidents and vice presidents for most of our history. No move was made to transfer power to Vice President Chester A. Arthur after President James Garfield was shot in 1881, even though the President was incapacitated during the last 80 days of his life. Similarly, Woodrow Wilson clung to power though incapacitated during much of the last 17 months of his presidency. First Lady Edith Bolling Wilson, not Vice President Thomas Marshall, essentially made executive decisions during this period. And presidential power remained with President Dwight D. Eisenhower during his three incapacities in the mid-1950s.
The Eisenhower disabilities amidst the Cold War and nuclear age prompted interest in addressing the problem of presidential inability. Eisenhower took important steps by entering into a letter agreement with Vice President Richard M. Nixon allowing either to initiate the temporary transfer of presidential powers and duties from Eisenhower to Nixon with Eisenhower retaining the right to reclaim them. Congress began considering constitutional amendments addressing presidential inability without reaching any consensus.
Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November, 1963, Senator Birch Bayh, the newly-appointed chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, proposed a constitutional amendment in December, 1963 which anticipated the eventual Amendment. So did principles suggested by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association group that included former Attorney General Herbert Brownell, future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, iconic Harvard law professor Paul A. Freund, and John D. Feerick, a young New York lawyer, who had begun writing scholarly articles regarding presidential inability before the assassination.
The Amendment contains four sections. Section One adopted the Tyler Precedent following a presidential death, resignation or removal, but not after a presidential inability in which case the vice president simply acts as president. Section Two of the Amendment allowed the president to nominate a new vice president to fill a vice-presidential vacancy upon confirmation by each house of Congress. Section Three permitted the president to transfer presidential powers and duties to the vice president during a period of presidential inability and to reclaim them when the disability ends. Section four allowed the vice president and the majority of the Cabinet (or an alternative body should Congress create one) to transfer presidential powers and duties from the president during a presidential inability. The president can reclaim those powers upon a written declaration of his fitness to resume them unless the vice president and Cabinet contest his declaration in which case Congress decides the issue within a designated time.
Presidential succession and inability were not the sort of hot-button issues that attracted the engaged attention of many politicians. That was partly why longstanding problems persisted. Bayh was different. He pushed relentlessly and effectively for passage of the proposed amendment, involving colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Representatives Emanuel Celler and Richard Poff also played important roles. And Feericks scholarship informed legislative deliberations even while he worked with the ABA to achieve passage and ratification, the latter coming on February 10, 1967.
Three of the four sections of the Amendment have been utilized six times since its ratification. In October, 1973, Gerald R. Ford was nominated to fill a vice-presidential vacancy produced by the resignation of Spiro T. Agnew and confirmed less than two months later. In August, 1974, Ford succeeded to the presidency following Richard M. Nixons resignation. The following month, Ford nominated Nelson A. Rockefeller as vice president and Rockefeller was confirmed in December.
Two presidents have transferred presidential powers and duties to the vice president while they underwent surgery under general anesthesia on three occasions. In July, 1985, President Ronald Reagan transferred presidential powers to Vice President George H.W. Bush for eight hours while Reagan had a cancerous polyp removed. President George W. Bush briefly transferred powers to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2002 and 2007 while he underwent colonoscopies.
The early uses of the Amendment confirm its contributions to Americas system of assuring presidential continuity. The impeachment proceedings that forced Nixons resignation would have been complicated without the ability to install Republican Ford as vice president when Democratic Speaker of the House Carl Albert was otherwise next-in-line. Whereas the vice presidency was vacant for 21% of American history before the Twenty-fifth Amendment was ratified, since then it has been unoccupied for only 6 months or less than .1%, thereby diminishing the importance of the remainder of the line of succession where the solutions are less attractive. Section Three and Four encourage a transfer of power when a president is physically or mentally unable to perform by providing procedures, identifying decision-makers, and allowing the president to resume office upon the end of the incapacity.
The framers of the Twenty-fifth Amendment recognized other problems in Americas system for providing presidential continuity but deferred them to later legislatures after concluding that broadening their effort would prevent any progress. These problems include the following: the line of succession after the vice presidency currently runs through legislative leaders who might not belong to the presidents party; no provisions exist to declare a vice president disabled; the electoral system presents various vulnerable spots. Congress should address these and other gaps in the very near future.
That would be a fitting tribute to the great contributions of Bayh, Feerick and others that culminated fifty years ago with the ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and would continue their great work of improving our system of government.
Continued here:
Celebrating the 50th of the 25th Amendment! | The Huffington Post - Huffington Post
Last night, shortly after the Ninth Circuit blocked enforcement of Donald Trumps immigration executive order, I saw this tweet:
Mr. Crown was more correct than he knows. Thanks to my time machine, I was able to secure a copy of the following opinion, dated October 18, 2019. Its from a panel of Ninth Circuit judges, per curiam:
Abu Bakral-Baghdadi and the State of California, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States
This matter comes before the court through the Trump administrations appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Californias worldwide ban on American bombing raids against alleged members of the so-called Islamic State, better known as ISIS. The alleged leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi filed suit to stop the American aerial offensive, and the state of California intervened on his behalf.
Mr. Baghdadi claims that the bombing campaign violates his clearly-established rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The state of California claims that the systematic attacks are depriving its public university system access to a number of Islamic legal scholars, including Mr. Baghdadi. Faculty members testified during the district court proceedings that they wished to invite Mr. Baghdadi to lecture students regarding his masters thesis in Koranic recitation, and Mr. Baghdadi testified that a number of ISIS fighters are indeed actively seeking to enter the United States. The government does not dispute that they will be unable gain entry if their remains are spread across the rubble of Raqqa.
In addition, California argues that the Trump Administrations efforts to kill Mr. Baghdadi are motivated by anti-Islamic animus and thus violate the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. As evidence to support their claims, California points to prestigious faculty appointments held by non-Islamic alleged terrorists like William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and to numerous Trump campaign statements declaring an intention not just to ban Muslims from entry to America but also, more ominously, to bomb the sh*t out of ISIS an explicitly religious organization.
After hearing oral arguments via conference call, with Mr. Baghdadis counsel participating through a series of threatening tweets, this court affirms the district court order and enjoins bombing raids directed at ISIS or its members, subsidiaries, and affiliates.
We begin our analysis with our 2017 opinion in Washington v. Trump. In that case we noted that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Moreover, the Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing notice and an opportunity to respond, or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered.
Critically, we also held that the due process rights articulated in the Fifth Amendment attach not merely to citizens and persons in the United States, but also to persons seeking to come to the United States. At a minimum, then, Mr. Baghdadi (and any other members of ISIS seeking to travel to the U.S.) are entitled to notice and a hearing prior to having their travel interrupted by Hellfire missile. While Mr. Baghdadi is unquestionably on notice of the governments intention to kill him (notice that he describes as loud, daily, and terrifying), he also unquestionably has not had an opportunity to contest the charges against him.
In addition, Mr. Baghdadi raises credible claims of religious bias in the American bombing campaign. He asserts that American operations violate the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. As we held in Washington v. Trump, It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. And that evidence is indeed damaging. Mr. Trump has repeatedly labeled ISIS as explicitly religious, calling it radical and Islamic, and his avowed intention to bomb the sh*t out of ISIS cannot be divorced from this religious context.
Furthermore, the state of California is indeed correct that American universities have benefited widely from the scholarly insights of alleged non-Islamic bomberslike Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn in spite of the fact that they were reportedly involved in multiple acts of terrorist violence, Mr. Ayers in fact once told the New York Times, I dont regret setting bombs and expressed regret that we [his alleged terrorist organization] didnt do enough.It is a foundational principle of equal protection jurisprudence that similarly-situated individuals should be treated alike. The Trump administration has failed to articulate why a non-Islamic alleged terrorist gained tenure while a squadron of Super Hornets prevents an Islamic alleged terrorist from presenting papers at Berkeley.
Just as in Washington v. Trump, the Government has pointed to no evidence that Mr. Baghdadi or any of the countless, nameless targets of American bombs has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Therefore, the balance of the equities dictates that we must rule for Mr. Baghdadi. Ending the bombing campaign in Syria will have the salutary effect of saving the taxpayers a considerable sum of money and of ending systematic discrimination against a marginalized religious minority. Continuing the campaign means that it is only a matter of time before Mr. Baghdadi and his confederates suffer the irreparable harm of a JDAM attack.
The Governments motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. The war is enjoined.
Visit link:
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi v. Trump, a Ninth Circuit . . . Parody? - National Review
A bill introduced in Tennessee on Wednesday would make it cheaper to buy a gun for one weekend of the year in that state, with a special tax-free event.
Surprisingly - a county Democratic official opposes the idea.
WJHL reports, State Rep. Dennis Powers, introduced House Bill 744 or Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday. The measure would remove the sales tax on guns and ammunition during the first weekend of September. The proposal is similar to the tax-free back-to-school holiday weekend Tennessee holds at the end of the summer.
Were ecstatic about it, it would be great for our business, Tri-Cities Gun Depot Co-Owner, Tommy Isaacs told WJHL.
Isaacs even said his shop would reduce prices for what hes calling back to school for hunters.
Nancy Fischman, Chair of the Washington County Democratic Party would like to see lawmakers focus on other issues.
Why doesnt he propose a sales tax holiday for groceries? You have to eat but you dont have to buy a gun, Fischman tells WJHL.
If the Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday, were passed - it would take effect this September, joining similar Second Amendment Sales Tax Holidays in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Thank you for supporting MRCTV! As a tax-deductible, charitable organization, we rely on the support of our readers to keep us running!Keep MRCTV going with your gift here!
Continue reading here:
Tenn. Considers 'Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday' - MRCTV (blog)
RAMSEY, N.J. Amidst threat of a lawsuit from the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the Ramsey Borough Council Wednesday held off on adopting an ordinance that would prohibit firearms from being discharged at shooting ranges within the borough.
The council voted to table the ordinance until the next council meeting on Feb. 22.
We are in the process of obtaining a national law firm to represent the borough pro-bono in the event of litigation since the New Jersey Second Amendment Society has threatened the borough with costly and protracted litigation if we move forward with the amendment, Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon told a packed meeting room.
The borough attorney advised the mayor and council to table to the ordinance until that law firm is retained, Dillon said.
The ordinance at issue, introduced last month, revises one currently on the books that prohibits the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough, but exempts indoor and outdoor firing ranges.
The revisions to ban the use of firearms at shooting ranges as well were introduced after the borough received an application to create a 60,000-square-foot indoor firing range at the former Liberty Travel building on Spring Street. An application for the facility dubbed the Screaming Eagle Club is pending with the Ramsey Planning Board.
RELATED: With Firing Range Pending, Ramsey To Consider Tightening Gun Law
New Jersey Second Amendment Society President Alexander Roubian sent a letter to the mayor and council on Feb. 1, stating: Our legal team is currently preparing the necessary Complaint to file with the N.J. District Court in the event the Ordinance is passed; however we ask that the proposed ordinance be pulled from the agenda so we can work together on an amicable solution without the need for costly litigation.
Roubian, a graduate of Ramsey High School, addressed the mayor and council in person Wednesday. We are very confident that we have a very, very good case here, he said, warning prevailing parties will be recovering their legal fees.
It is a chance we are willing to take, Dillon responded.
A string of additional speakers took to the mic to voice their concerns about both safety and Second Amendment issues.
RELATED: Ramsey Residents Say 'No' To Proposed Indoor Shooting Range
We like the town the way it is, a bucolic beautiful town that is safe for our children, said Ramsey resident Ellen OKeefe.
Andrew Stravitz, of Allendale, pointed out that the Waldwick Pistol & Rifle Club has been a few miles away from Ramsey for about 50 years. In 50 years, zero injuries in the shooting range over there, he said.
Barbara Puccia, of Ramsey, said It only takes one, and one person only, that has bad intentions that can cause a tragedy in this town.
Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment Group Threatens Lawsuit, Ramsey Tables Gun ... - Garfield Daily Voice
Under the propsoal, the 1st weekend of September would be called the Second Amendment Sales Tax holiday.
Andrew Weil , WBIR 11:44 PM. EST February 09, 2017
Rows of guns for sale in showcase of retail store with application on counter (Photo: wingedwolf, wingedwolf)
NASHVILLE - An East Tennessee lawmaker wants there to be an annual tax-free weekend geared toward gun owners.
The bill, filed by Rep. Dennis Powers, R-Jacksboro, would establish the "Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday" for the first weekend of September.
The tax holiday would cover firearms and ammunition. Guns covered by the tax discount would include shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, BB guns, and Muzzleloaders, according to the bill's text.
Tennessee already features an annual tax-free weekend at the end of summer, but that's geared specifically toward back-to-school shopping.
Last year, Louisiana and Mississippi each hosted a Second Amendment sales tax holiday weekend.
If approved, Tennessee's first "Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday" would be in 2017.
( 2017 WBIR)
Read this article:
Tennessee lawmaker proposes tax-free weekend for guns | WBIR.com - WBIR.com
(Image: Lauren Walker / Truthout)
Media advocates everywhere were alarmed, if not surprised, when Donald Trump recently appointed former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai to be the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Central questions include what Pai's appointment will mean for freedom of the press and the future of the internet. Sources who have met Pai, who is active on social media, describe him as smart and affable, but with a militant, ideological opposition to regulating Big Media and Telecom. An FCC controlled by Trump and Pai, the latter of whom has "been on the wrong side of just about every major issue that has come before the FCC," according to the media reform group Free Press, poses a serious threat to democracy.
Pai, an FCC commissioner since 2012, has constantly sided with the powerful media and telecom lobbies. He pledged to take a "weed whacker" to net neutrality, opposed lowering the cost of phone calls for families of people in prison, and enabled devastating media concentration with his opposition to ownership restrictions. His promotion to chairman was met with glee from free-market ideologues and executives at big media and telecom companies, such as AT&T, who promised to help Pai "support the president's agenda."
Trump has already shown an extreme level of hostility toward the press. Now, he will have the Pai-led FCC to function as his own personal toolbox to undermine the free press. As Americans unite in resistance to Trump, it is vital that they take notice of what is going on at the FCC.
"The FCC is designed to protect the media in the interest of the public. But as a commissioner for all these years, I have seen it become a willing accomplice in diminishing our media," said former FCC chairman Michael Copps, in an interview with Truthout. "We have a sad state of affairs in the media ... Pai opposes any kind of government oversight. So I am deeply worried."
The Fragility of the First Amendment
The FCC was created in 1934 to make media and communications "available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." At the time, it mostly applied to radio, but it has expanded to include virtually all our methods of mass communication: telephone, television and the internet. When functioning as it should, said Free Press strategic director Tim Karr in an interview with Truthout, its "existence is vital in protecting basic freedoms of speech that are important to Americans."
Indeed, the public has long revered the First Amendment, by far the most well-known and appreciated amendment in the Constitution. But polls also show a great deal of confusion over what the amendment does. This combination of reverence and ignorance has led to what Karr calls a "nave perception that the First Amendment will always be there to protect us."
But the reality is that only with militant advocacy have these protections been preserved. The fragility of the amendment has been evident since before the Constitution was ratified. It was opposed by most of the framers -- federalists who allowed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights only as a concession to placate the anti-federalists who were skeptical of the 55 wealthy elites who produced the Constitution in secret and believed "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy."
Since then, the values in the First Amendment have been undermined many times. Examples abound: John Adams jailed dissenters and journalists with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Eugene Debs was jailed for years by the (still existent) Espionage Act of 1917 for giving an anti-war speech. More recently, the Obama administration waged a war against whistleblowers and spied on the Associated Press.
Our First Amendment rights are in even greater peril given Trump's open hostility toward the media. Six reporters were charged with felonies for committing the apparently criminal act of journalism at Trump's inauguration (see Truthout's statement of solidarity). And the anti-Semitic, Islamophobic white nationalist Steve Bannon called the media an "opposition party" that should "keep their mouths shut."
If most Americans previously held the belief that the First Amendment will always protect their rights to free speech and a free media, the actions of Donald Trump -- just weeks into his reign -- should awaken them from the slumber. Media activism, and specifically the function of the FCC, has arguably never been more important.
"We need to fight for a free press and free speech, and it has to be the grassroots," said Copps, who serves as an advisor at Common Cause, a national organization that fights for democratic reforms. "People have to fight for it.... The media won't cover [these issues]."
A New Era of Media Consolidation
It is indeed rare for the media to cover how the industry's increasing concentration hurts democracy. Such journalism would put the profits of Big Media in jeopardy. The dearth of coverage has limited study on the issue, but the available literature on the subject is unambiguous. A study published by the Journal of Politics on media coverage of concentration resulting from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 -- the most damning loosening of ownership restrictions in the FCC's history -- found "substantial differences in how newspapers reported on these proposed regulatory changes depending on the financial interests of their corporate owners."
But despite the media's tendency to ignore or dismiss such concerns, the issue of ownership is vital in any discussion of a free press. "Critics of concentration rightly view the media as a huge, non-democratically organized force that has major power politics, public discourse and culture," observed media scholar C. Edwin Baker, in his book, Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. Baker lamented an FCC whose actions too often "lie in the power and economic self-interest of major media companies."
Pai, however, doesn't see media concentration as a threat to the First Amendment. In fact, he has oddly argued that the threat to the First Amendment lies in limits on such concentration. Bloomberg reports that Pai believes that existing rules are "obsolete," and the industry is already anticipating that he will relax current ownership restrictions.
Of immediate concern to reformers and the industry is the proposed $85 billion merger of Time Warner and AT&T, which Free Press argues "would create a television and Internet colossus like no other." The danger of this merger managed to unite Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), who issued a joint statement arguing the transaction would "raise significant antitrust issues." The deal is seen as part of a new era of consolidation involving megamergers between media companies and satellite and cable providers. Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal, denounced by media reform activists, is an early example of this.
Trump has publicly vowedto stop the merger, but organizers are not buying it. "Trump hates CNN. I think Trump was trying to fire a shot at Time Warner [which owns CNN], but the reality is that his FCC transition team was always pro-merger, and the same is true of Pai," Karr said.
This new kind of consolidation is not likely to end with Time Warner/AT&T. On January 27, the Wall Street Journal reported that Verizon is "exploring a merger" with the cable/telecom giant Charter Communications, a prospect which tech reporter Chris Mills said "is terrifying for anyone with an internet connection."
With Pai in charge, the prospects for the approval of mergers are significantly improved. His appointment has some tech companies "salivating," according to the financial news service, The Street. "Althoughmany of President Donald Trump's cabinet nominations and government appointees have been mired in controversy, one of the more influential for a large swath of the U.S. economy and markets is barely registering with the media," the report said.
Media Lobby: Full Speed Ahead
While some of this merger talk is speculative, one thing is certain. "With such high stakes, the media and telecom lobbies are powerful and working full bore in Washington," Copps said.
In the House of Representatives, media issues are handled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and more specifically, the Subcommittee on Communications in Technology (whose members have been named for both parties).The chair of the subcommittee is Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) who, as Karr notes, is "awash in money" from the major lobbies.
But Blackburn is hardly alone. Cross-referencing members of the committee with donations from these industries is a dizzying exercise. According to the most recent data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Time Warner has donated more money to the Commerce Committee than any other committee, more than double that of the next largest recipient, the Judiciary Committee. The same is true of AT&T, the other half of the pending merger that will more likely face hearings, and the National Association of Broadcasters(NAB) and Comcast donate money along similar lines.
Among the top industries donating to Blackburn in the recent cycle were telecom services, TV utilities and telephone utilities. The companies to donate the most to Blackburn were Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Charter Communications and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA). Vice Chairman Leonard Lance's top industries include telecom services and telecom utilities, with specific donors including AT&T and NCTA.
Telecom services is also the fourth-largest industry to donate to Michael Doyle, the ranking Democrat on the committee. His largest donors include Comcast and the Communications Workers of America, one of the rare unions to oppose net neutrality protections. The National Association of Broadcasters has donated to 21 members of the subcommittee, 15 of them Republicans.
The End of Net Neutrality?
There can be no doubt about the power and aggressiveness of these industries. The Center for Responsive Politics' records show 560 clients for the telecom industry who spent $87 million in 2016. The spending is reflective of how high the stakes are for media policy debates in the coming years. Decisions by Pai and Trump could lead to the end of net neutrality, which protects consumers from corporations that seek to commodify the internet and dictate which sites are most accessible. The majority of people, including conservatives, are supportive of net neutrality in polls.
Pai and other conservatives will occasionally claim to support the principles of net neutrality. Organizers, however, warn that these are misleading claims. Despite offering lip service about an open internet, Pai opposes any regulation with teeth to enforce these protections. Tom Wheeler, Obama's final FCC chairman passed significant reforms on this issue. But Pai opposed them, arguing in his dissent that he was "sad to witness" this "unlawful power grab." This is why militant conservatives like Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin cannot resist making giddy tweets in praise of Pai and his metaphorical gardening equipment:
Malkin's vigorous support of America's Japanese internment camps bears unsettling similarities to Trump's authoritarian agenda. It appears she also shares his administration's contempt for the FCC as a regulatory agency. She has described the FCC as "internet traffic cops," in a blog post titled "Internet access is not a civil right."
Copps, on the other hand, sees the issue of net neutrality as a defining one for advocates of media reform. "People see climate denialists at the EPA and are rightly concerned," Copps said. "Well, Trump just appointed a net-neutrality denialist at the head of the agency. This is how people should look at this issue."
Opposing Prison Phone Justice
Another troubling part of Pai's past is his opposition to prison phone justice. For years, prison phone services have been privatized, and companies have charged exorbitant amounts of money for prisoners to make calls -- a burden placed upon their families, who are overwhelmingly low-income. In 2015, as a Truthout op-ed documented, this $1.2 billion industry, rife with corruption and bribery scandals, was finally required by Wheeler's FCC to lower these costs.
Pai voted against the modest, humane reforms.
"The Commission's decision today is well-intentioned, and I commend the efforts of those working to reduce the rates for inmate calling services," Pai wrote in his dissent. "Unfortunately, I cannot support these particular regulations because I believe that they are unlawful."
In November 2016 a federal appeals court blocked the FCC's efforts to reform the process. The Wheeler-led FCC was still fighting the issue in the courts, but the new Republican majority wasted little time in dropping the defense of rate caps altogether -- a distressing sign of things to come with Pai in charge.
To this day, prisoners and their families are suffering from this injustice. "It costs $3.15 for a 15-minute phone call inside here," says John Broman, a federal prisoner who writes about his life in prison, in an interview with Truthout. "For the people that rely on a $5.25 paycheck once a month, it comes down to soap or a call to their family, which really isn't right."
Media Activism and Resistance to Trump
Media activists emphasize that all of the Trump administration's brutal policies will be exacerbated by its egregious media policy agenda.
"Whatever you think is the most important issue," Copps said, "media policy should be next on your list. There will be no change on the issue you care about the most without a strong media."
For instance, an FCC that is hostile to a free press doesn't cause climate change, but if private capital controls virtually all media, there will be no serious national discussion on the subject. Media touches everything. "In any large society, mass media is probably the most crucial instructional structure in the public sphere," Baker writes.
The good news is that millions have protested Trump's agenda. But efforts to fight for justice will be limited if Trump can trample the press and the open internet. Advocates are hopeful that the widespread resistance to Trump will include the struggle for a free press.
"Millions of Americans from across the political spectrum have looked to the FCC to protect their rights to connect and communicate," said Free Press CEO Craig Aaron on the day Pai was appointed. "Those millions will rise up again to oppose his reactionary agenda."
See the rest here:
The First Amendment May Not Protect Us: Trump's FCC Intensifies Attack on Press - Truth-Out
Mauro Grigollo Westend61/Newscom"Today is Jim Stewart's birthday. Reply to post a wish on his Timeline or reply with 1 to post 'Happy Birthday!'" That's the text, from Facebook to Colin Brickman, that launched a legal battle between Brickman and the social-media giant.
You see, Brickman had opted out of receiving texts from Facebook via the platform's notification settings. In response to the unwanted birthday reminder, Brickman filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, representing "all individuals who received one or more Birthday Announcement Texts from [Facebook] to a cell phone through the use of an automated telephone dialing system at any time without their consent."
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that Facebook's sending unauthorized text messages is a violation of the federal Telephone Communications Privacy Act (TCPA). "A valid TCPA claim requires plaintiff to allege (1) a defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automated telephone dialing system ('ATDS'); and (3) without the recipient's prior express consent," explains lawyer Jack Greiner in the Cincinnati Enquirer. "A text message is a 'call' within the meaning of the TCPA."
In its defense, Facebook alleged that the TCPA in unconstitutional. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Facebook attorneys argued that the TCPA's allowed exceptionsfor emergency communications and debt collectorsrender it an umpermissable, content-based restriction on speech. But the judge, while agreeing that the TCPA's restrictions are content-based (and thus subject to strict scrutiny, legally speaking), found that the law passed constitutional muster nonetheless.
The case will go forward with Facebook defending its text messages on technical grounds; it argues that the texts were not automated because Brickman and others who received them had supplied Facebook with their phone numbers. But, for now, Facebook's argument that it has a First Amendment right to send people text messages against their will has been rejected.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has twice found the TCPA to be constitutional in previous casesMoser v. Federal Communications Commission (1995) and Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez (2016)the Department of Justice pointed out in a memorandum in support of TCPA's constitutionality. In the latter case, the 9th Circuit rejected the idea that the government's interest with the law "only extends to the protection of residential privacy, and that therefore the statute is not narrowly tailored to the extent that it applies to cellular text messages."
"There is no evidence that the government's interest in privacy ends at home," ruled the 9th circuit in Campbell-Ewald. Furthermore, "to whatever extent the government's significant interest lies exclusively in residential privacy, the nature of cell phones renders the restriction of unsolicited text messaging all the more necessary to ensure that privacy."
Go here to read the rest:
Facebook Has No First Amendment Right to Send Unauthorized Texts, Says Court - Reason (blog)
One of several service providers to sue the government over its gag orders, Microsoft received some good news from a federal judge in its lawsuit against the DOJ. Microsoft is challenging gag orders attached to demands for data and communications, which the DOJ orders is statutorily-supported by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and, if not, by supposed national security concerns.
As Microsoft pointed out in its lawsuit, the government rarely justifies its secrecy demands and frequently issues gag orders with no endpoint. Microsoft received nearly 2,800 of these gag-ordered requests over an 18-month period, with over two-thirds of them demanding silence indefinitely.
The good news is a federal judge has (partially) waved away the DOJ's motion to dismiss and will allow Microsoft to proceed with its lawsuit, as Politico's Josh Gerstein reports.
U.S, District Court Judge James Robart issued a 47-page opinion [PDF] Thursday allowing Microsoft to proceed with a lawsuit claiming a First Amendment violation when the government restricts internet providers from notifying subscribers about requests for their data.
"The orders at issue here are more analogous to permanent injunctions preventing speech from taking place before it occurs," Robart wrote. "The court concludes that Microsoft has alleged sufficient facts that when taken as true state a claim that certain provisions of Section 2705(b) fail strict scrutiny review and violate the First Amendment."
Section 2705(b) refers to the Stored Communications Act, which allows the government demand notice be withheld under certain circumstances, unless otherwise forbidden to by another section of the same law (Section 2703). Microsoft is looking to have both sections declared unconstitutional, especially given the severe upheaval the communications landscape has undergone in the thirty years since the law was passed.
Microsoft contends that Section 2705(b) is unconstitutional facially and as applied because it violates the First Amendment right of a business to talk to [the businesss] customers and to discuss how the government conducts its investigations. Specifically, Microsoft contends that Section 2705(b) is overbroad, imposes impermissible prior restraints on speech, imposes impermissible content-based restrictions on speech, and improperly inhibits the publics right to access search warrants. Microsoft also alleges that Sections 2705(b) and 2703 are unconstitutional facially and as applied because they violate the Fourth Amendment right of people and businesses . . . to know if the government searches or seizes their property.
Microsoft contends that the statutes are facially invalid because they allow the government to (1) forgo notifying individuals of searches and seizures, and (2) obtain secrecy orders that prohibit providers from telling customers when the government has accessed their private information without constitutionally sufficient proof and without sufficient tailoring.
The DOJ argued Microsoft didn't have standing to bring this complaint, as its Fourth Amendment rights aren't implicated. Only its customers' are. But the court points out that, if nothing else, the company does have standing to pursue its claims of First Amendment violations.
The court finds that Microsoft has sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact and a likelihood of future injury. Microsoft alleges an invasion of its legally protected interest in speaking about government investigations due to indefinite nondisclosure orders issued pursuant to Section 2705(b)... The court concludes that Section 2705(b) orders that indefinitely prevent Microsoft from speaking about government investigations implicate Microsofts First Amendment rights.
The court goes on to point out that frequent use of indefinite gag orders certainly appears to be unconstitutional, given that they act as a "forever" application of prior restraint.
The court also concludes that Microsoft's assertions of further civil injuries aren't speculative, as the DOJ claimed. Judge Robart points to the government's own actions as evidence of continued harm to Microsoft's civil liberties.
Microsoft bolsters its prediction by alleging that over a 20-month period preceding this lawsuit, the Government sought and obtained 3,250 ordersat least 4504 of which accompanied search warrantsthat contained indefinite nondisclosure provisions. In addition, Microsoft alleges that in this District alone, it has received at least 63 such orders since September 2014. Because these orders have been frequent and issued recently, the Government will likely continue to seek and obtain them. Accordingly, Microsofts fears of similar injuries in the future are not merely speculative.
Unfortunately, the court won't grant Microsoft the standing to represent its users for Fourth Amendment purposes. Judge Robart points to a whole bunch of precedential decisions declaring otherwise, but at least takes a bit of time to discuss how denying Microsoft this opportunity likely means denying several of its users any sort of redress.
The court acknowledges the difficult situation this doctrine creates for customers subject to government searches and seizures under Sections 2703 and 2705(b). As Microsoft alleges, the indefinite nondisclosure orders allowed under Section 2705(b) mean that some customers may never know that the government has obtained information in which those customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy... For this reason, some of Microsofts customers will be practically unable to vindicate their own Fourth Amendment rights.
Expect the government to make heavy use of its "national security" mantra as it defends itself in this case. Those magic words have allowed all sorts of civil liberties violations in the past and still tend to move courts to the government's side when deployed in DOJ motions. If the court does side with Microsoft when this is all said and done, it's likely the remedy won't be a restriction on gag orders, but more likely something analogous to the rules that now govern National Security Letters -- periodic review of gag orders by the government and better avenues for raising challenges for companies affected. Then again, the court could simply punt it back to legislators and push them to fix the 30-year-old law whose dubious constitutionality is the source of numerous lawsuits against the federal government.
See the article here:
Court Says Microsoft Can Sue Government Over First Amendment-Violating Gag Orders - Techdirt
COLUMBIA In honor of the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Columbia Public Library will host a panel discussion on Monday examining how the First Amendment applies to modern-day America.
The event, "Examining Free Speech in the Digital Era," will be held from 7 to 8:30 p.m. on Monday in the Friends Room of the library. The library partnered with the League of Women Voters of Columbia-Boone County and the Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy to assemble a panel of scholars to talk at the event.
Panelists include Adam Seagrave, the Kinder Institute associate professor of constitutional democracy and associateprofessor of political science at MU; Nicholas Drummond, the Kinder postdoctoral fellow in political science and Jim Robertson, the managing editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune.
Each of the panelists will speak briefly about a topic, and the audience will have an opportunity to ask questions, said Patricia Miller, adult services manager for the library.
"We try to use this as an opportunity to educate ourselves and educate everyone a little bit more about the Bill of Rights and what it says," Miller said. "This will be an opportunity to hear a little bit from the experts."
Seagrave will speak about how the meaning of "freedom of speech" has changed in a technologically-advanced nation, especially with social media usage. He will discuss how the principles outlined in the First Amendment apply today.
"In my opinion, quite a lot is the same, including much of what is most important, Seagrave said.
Drummond will explore how people decide what is truthful, according to a library flier about the event. People today are afraid to discuss topics they consider "too dangerous." Drummond will compare that to political philosopher John Stuart Mill's concept of openly sharing viewpoints to uncover the truth.
Robertson's will talk about journalism within the First Amendment, particularly the day-to-day challenges journalists face and how they can help to separate truth from disinformation.
The panel discussion will complement the librarys 225th anniversary display on the clay brick wall of the librarys first floor. The Columbia Public Library was one of 15 libraries selected by the Missouri Humanities Council and the National Archives to host this exhibit, which will continue until Feb. 28.
In addition to the exhibit, the library has had a childrens book display with materials pertaining to the Bill of Rights, and will be putting up a second display on the librarys second floor, Miller said.
View original post here:
Columbia Public Library will host First Amendment event - Columbia Missourian
February is First Amendment month, and yes, I know that its kind of silly all of the months that we have. Some of them are quite good, like Black History Month, Great American Pie Month, (Im guessing that explains why the VC 4-H has its annual pie auction in February) National Heart Month, and National Macadamia Nut Month.
Can we all agree that the First Amendment is a good idea? In fact, its not just a good idea, its the bedrock foundation of our free society. Right up there with the Declaration of Independence.
And having said that, lets get this silly idea out of the way. The First Amendment says that Congress Shall Make No Laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the press. It doesnt make exceptions for hate speech (whatever THAT is!) or speech that makes you uncomfortable or speech that challenges your dogmas. The First Amendment was specifically designed to provide protection for people you loathe, people you detest and fear. It was invented to protect those who offend you the most. People who advocate dogs and cats living together, people who want to hum happy tunes using nothing but sharp notes, and, worst of all, people who eat purple vegetables.
This appears to be something that our colleges, which used to be hotbeds of freedom of speech, have forgotten. Berkeley University, which was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s, obviously needs an enema of some sort now since these days its more the home of the Constipated Speech Movement. And spare me your emails. I know that they were protesting someone who is a provocateur, who loves to poke fun at various sacred notions and enjoys outraging people. Doesnt matter. He has the right to speak. His right to speak should certainly be defended from goons in black leotards wearing black masks and wielding iron batons to silence those they disagree with.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote defenses of the right of people to burn the flag because it was protected by the First Amendment, even as he admitted that, if he were king, he would prefer to cut their heads off!
So, when you hear that people are not being allowed to speak somewhere because someone considers them to be the moral equivalent of Hitler, and that same someone beats up people, sets fires and destroys store fronts in the name of combating fascism, you may be forgiven for being skeptical. Fascism is as fascism does.
There was only one Hitler, and no one else even comes close. But some of us are trying.
View original post here:
The First Amendment: Not just a good idea - Valley Roadrunner
Cincinnati 12:07 a.m. ET Feb. 10, 2017
John C. Greiner, attorney for Graydon Head Legal Counsel. He's a commercial litigator with an emphasis on communications and media law. He serves on the firm's Appellate Practice Group. (Photo: Provided, Provided)
The social media platform Facebook recently lost a First Amendment challenge to the federal Telephone Communications Privacy Act. While the case is bad news in the short term for Facebook, the rejection of the constitutional challenge could have long-term consequences for the entire industry.
The case concerns birthday messages. Facebook employed computer software to send birthday announcement texts to users. In 2015, Facebook, through its short code SMS number 32665033, texted to Colin Brickman's cell phone number an unsolicited birthday announcement text stating Today is Jim Stewart's birthday. Reply to post a wish on his Timeline or reply with 1 to post Happy Birthday!. Although Brickman supplied Facebook his cell phone number, which is associated to his Facebook page, Brickman indicated in the notification settings of his Facebook account, prior to receiving the text message, that he did not want to receive any text messages from Facebook.
And Brickman apparently was serious about it. On Feb. 2, 2016, Brickman filed a class action suit against Facebook, alleging Facebook violates the TCPA by sending unauthorized text messages. Brickman asked the court to allow him to represent the class of (a)ll individuals who received one or more Birthday Announcement Texts from Defendant to a cell phone through the use of an automated telephone dialing system at any time without their consent.
A valid TCPA claim requires plaintiff to allege (1) a defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS); and (3) without the recipient's prior express consent. A text message is a call within the meaning of the TCPA.
Brickman alleged that Facebook employs computer software to send birthday announcement texts without human intervention to users. According to his complaint, Facebook's computer system, without any human intervention, reviews user data on a daily basis to identify users who have birthdays on a particular day; identifies the users Facebook friends who will receive the texts for a particular user's birthday; identifies the cell phone numbers of the Facebook friends that will receive the message; automatically inserts the name of the user celebrating a birthday into a form text in the appropriate language for each of the user's Facebook friends, creates the text; compiles a list of cell phone numbers to which it will send Birthday Text Announcements, stores those cell phone numbers in a queue, and then causes the text messages to be sent from that queue.
Facebook argued the text message was triggered by human intervention, in that Brickman signed up for Facebook and linked his cell number to his profile. And in addition to these technical arguments, Facebook contended the TCPA violates the First Amendment. In its view, based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down an Arizona sign ordinance, a law triggered by the content of a message is subject to strict scrutiny a standard that is almost impossible for the government to satisfy.
The good news for Facebook was the court agreed that the TCPA is content-based certain messages, such as emergency messages, are exempt based on their content. Others are not, again based on the content. That meant the court applied the strict scrutiny analysis. The bad news for Facebook was that in this case, the court concluded that the TCPA satisfied the standard.
In order to survive strict scrutiny, the government must prove the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Here, the court concluded the government has a compelling interest in protecting residential privacy. The TCPA is designed to do just that.
And the court concluded the TCPA is narrowly tailored. In support of its argument, Facebook argued the TCPA was under-inclusive meaning it did not actually address all of the instances necessary to achieve its purpose. In the Supreme Courts sign ordinance case, for example, there were 33 exemptions to the ordinance. But the TCPA has only two exemptions. The court concluded it was not under inclusive.
Facebook also argued that in other respects, the TCPA was over inclusive. That is, it sweeps too much interaction under its provisions. The court rejected this argument as well. In its view, the TCPA is limited to a narrow subset of automated calls made without the recipients consent. It does not restrict individuals from receiving any call they want to receive. Any speech that the TCPA would cover is removed from that coverage once the consumer consents.
The immediate effect of the ruling is that Facebook will have to defend Brickmans suit on fairly technical grounds. The big constitutional defense is off the table, at least for now. And consumers will continue to enjoy protection from unwanted communications.
Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.
Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2kai9cH
More here:
Facebook loses 1st Amendment challenge to federal law - Cincinnati.com
These days, it seems like the First Amendment is under assault from all sides. President Trump has waged war with news outlets, called to strip citizenship from anyone who sets the American flag on fire, and vowed to broaden libel laws to thwart adversaries.
On college campuses, there has been a sharp rise in the use of trigger warnings, safe spaces and disinvitation protests which are, in turn, portrayed as attempts to suppress opposing viewpoints. Just last week,violence broke out at the University of California, Berkeley, in response to a scheduled speech by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos.
But a different narrative is playing out in American high schools, where student support for First Amendment protections is the strongest its been in a decade, according to asurvey released this week by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes First Amendment protections and press freedom.
(More from The 74: School Bullying, Civic Engagement and the First Amendment in Donald Trumps America)
Of 11,998 students from 31 public and private high schools nationwide who participated in the survey, 91 percent agreed that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions, an increase from 83 percent in 2004.
High school teachers are even more likely to support the First Amendment than their students. Of 726 high school teachers surveyed, 95 percent supported the right to express unpopular opinions, a slight decrease from 97 percent in 2004.
But as with any survey of this nature, language matters. Changing the word unpopular to offensive decreased support for free speech from 91 percent to 45 percent among students and from 95 percent to 53 percent among teachers.
Its important to understand the attitudes and perceptions of future generations, because theyre the ones who will ultimately be shaping norms, and norms often have sway on policy and the way the First Amendment is protected, said Jon Sotsky, the Knight Foundations director for strategy and assessment. Its very important to understand how these attitudes are shifting.
Despite the rise in student acceptance for free speech protections, Richard Garnett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who focuses on First Amendment issues, found the surveys results to be more glass half empty. He said he was troubled by a disconnect between young adults and an American tradition in which the remedy for offensive speech is more speech rather than censorship.
The irony, Id imagine all these high school kids in the survey, if you asked them, Are you for or against diversity, theyd be like, Oh, we love diversity, Garnett said. Well, if youre for diversity, you cant be for censoring stuff that offends you. Thats a two plus two equals five kind of thing.
Beyond perceptions of free speech protections, the Knight Foundation report offered a glimpse into student media consumption. While its no surprise that young adults receive most of their news on mobile devices through social media platforms like Twitter, the report found that students who actively engage with news on social media have stronger support for First Amendment freedoms. And while Americans trust in news is at all-time lows, students were far more likely than their teachers to consider information posted by everyday individuals more trustworthy than content from professional journalists.
High school students are also far less likely than adults to be concerned about privacy. While Sotsky noted that most kids dont have financial privacy concerns, such as credit card numbers, he observed that students, who have grown up in the digital age, are more likely to share personal information.
The surveys were conducted from March to June 2016. They have a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point for students and plus or minus 4 points for teachers.
Read this article:
First Amendment Is Strong at Nation's High Schools: 91% of ... - The 74 - The 74
Browsers are our window into the virtual world.
So often though, we forget that just as we are looking outward, companies are looking inward. Every search we perform is logged and tied to our virtual footprint (and amongst other things, our geographic location). Search surveillance consequences span from differential pricing (like a higher online price if your browser denotes your location as affluent) to the inability for people to access sensitive information in countries with strict censorship laws (countries, for example, restricting access to sites about AIDS). Access to the amount and kinds of information internet architecture provides is unprecedented, and we are only beginning to understand the implications.
This is where The Onion Router (Tor) comes in. The Tor browser obscures any personal ties and information (with a few exceptions) associated with your browsinghistory. When you use Tor, instead of your request going straight from your browser to the site (like from my DuckDuckGosearch right to technical.ly/philly),it reroutes through several different countries. When using Tor, my request then might go through Norway and Germany before reaching technical.ly/philly. You might imagine that when using Tor, you are not only putting shades on your window but also removing your house from the map or Streetview entirely.
The overall strategy of Tor is that the more people who use it, the stronger of a tool it is. For activist and West Philly-based Tor Communications DirectorKatie Krauss, using Tor is not just switching a browser.
Using the Tor browser is a civic act it allows you to protect your right to privacy, and at the same time it helps human rights activists in countries like Iran or China to use the Internet without getting a knock on the door, she said.
The Tor Project also has Philly roots, as cofounder and research director Roger Dingledine used to be a visiting professor at Drexel.
Below are screenshots and some narrative about my experience downloading and using Tor.
(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)
(Screenshot)
When logging on to Facebook and Gmail, Tor wouldnt have masked my identity (instead it would prevent certain kinds of advertising and tracking). However, both Facebook and Gmail gave me error messages.
(Screenshot)
Unfortunately, this was to no avail. Facebook was alerting me that my account was likely compromised, because my last shown login was from Colombia. After attempting verification steps, I was locked out of both of my accounts.
I contacted Krauss to see if this was typical or Tor-related. She gave me the Facebook loophole: The way to avoid this with Facebook is to use their onion address (put this into the address bar on the Tor browser and it will take you to Facebook): https://facebookcorewwwi.onion/.For more info, she directed me to this Facebook blog post.
Krauss noted that she and several other users she checked with have no problem with Gmail in the Tor browser, though it is possible that the issue was the Tor-Gmail interface.
In the end, it worked for me: I was locked out of Gmail for about 3 hours, but after attempting again, I was able to sign in (though I had to verify with an extra step). While it was frustrating to be locked out of my email for a bit, the experience drove home for me how location dependent verification is (and the potential consequences of such dependence).
Overall, Tor was easy to implement and the inconvenience of switching browser was worth the benefit.Ive since relapsed since I first used it because its faster to go log on in Chrome and I need Google Hangouts for work (I havent been able to use it on Tor) but I am back on Tor now.
As I was browsing and watching the latest news, the onion metaphor made me beyond the technical aspect of Tor: if we imagine that those whose civil rights are most vulnerable are in the center, we can effect change by layering around them even with as simple an act of a browser change.
Jen Rajchel explores the intersection between the humanities and technology. A transplant from Las Vegas, she is a Bryn Mawr grad who has made the Philly suburbs her home.
More:
'Using Tor is a civic act': A beginner's guide to the privacy browser - Technical.ly Philly
The unique cryptocurrency platform, Byteball is preparing itself to launch the second round of token distribution.
The unique cryptocurrency platform, Byteball is preparing itself to launch the second round of token distribution. The latest round is scheduled to happen on February 11, 2017, at 00:33 (UTC) the next full moon day.
The upcoming release of bytes (the crypto tokens on Byteball Network) is the second of its kind. The platform, which was launched on Christmas Day of 2016 distributed bytes (native cryptocurrency) and blackbytes (untraceable private tokens) to the Bitcoin community. Bitcoin holders, who signed up for the distribution received fresh bytes proportional to their Bitcoin holdings.
According to Byteball, over 70,000 BTCs were linked to the first round of distribution. In the second round, the platform will be issuing bytes to both Bitcoin and Byteball community members. During the process, Byteball token holders will receive 0.1 gigabytes (GB) for every 1 GB of bytes held. Similarly, the platform will issue 0.625 GB for each BTC owned by the eligible community members.
A Byteball representative quoted in the platforms press release said,
In the new distribution, 1 GB holding receives the same share as 1.6 BTC. 1 GB is currently traded at 0.05 BTC.
Byteball is already in the process of building the whole ecosystem around the cryptocurrency platform. Currently, the Byteball ecosystem has cryptocurrency wallets, bot-supported marketplace, private untraceable currency and an exchange platform that allows people to convert their Bitcoin to bytes and vice versa using a chatbot interface.
Byteballs use of a unique Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) instead of blockchain technology gives it an upper hand over its rival altcoins. The absence of blockchain makes it less prone to scalability issues faced by the likes of Bitcoin. The Byteball Network users will not have to deal with delays and problems related to block size and block discovery times. A total of 10^15 bytes will be issued by Byteball, 99 percent of which will be distributed among the community members over multiple rounds.
Byteball has emerged as a promising cryptocurrency platform that can meet the growing industry needs. By offering the huge Bitcoin community an opportunity to take part in the new revolution, the platform is expected to gain widespread adoption in the coming months. It is the ideal time for the existing Bitcoin and Byteball community members to take part in the distribution and watch the value of bytes grow in their possession.
Excerpt from:
Byteball Cryptocurrency Platform Schedules Second Bytes ... - newsBTC
A lot of people are starting to show an interest in cryptocurrency trading. While this is a positive development, there are some pitfalls novice traders will need to watch out for. These mistakes are rather common and can end up costing new traders a few thousand dollars worth of cryptocurrency if they are not careful. With the following pitfalls in mind, there should be far less risk when it comes to cryptocurrency trading as a whole.
To put this particular tip into perspective, not every cryptocurrency exchange is designed to be used for various altcoins. There are some clear market leaders who can be trusted when it comes to trading alternate cryptocurrencies, whereas others seem slightly shady. Using the wrong exchange can result in withdrawals not being honored or trading markets becoming inaccessible at the wrong time. Always do your own research before trusting an unknown company with your money, as it can be difficult- if not impossible to get it out again when things go awry.
The world of alternative cryptocurrencies is filled with many opportunities, although not everything is what it seems. Unfortunately for novice traders, it is rather difficult to distinguish between a worthwhile and useless attacking. At the rate at which coins are being developed these days, any new coin should be avoided until it properly establishes itself in the market.
At the same time, investors and speculators want to buy potentially powerful coins as cheap as possible. Getting in at a later stage will decrease the chances of making a big profit along the way. There is a very fine balance to walk between buying coins cheap and investing in a pump-and-dump scam at the wrong time. Most novice traders experience the latter option well before they will make their first major profit.
One thing every cryptocurrency trader needs to keep in mind is how panic can be one of the worst motivators to make the right trade. Markets are very volatile in the altcoin scene, and it doesnt take much volume to send things in either direction. There is nothing wrong with trusting a gut feeling, but panic should never determine how and when one trades. To this day, a lot of novice cryptocurrency traders let their actions be guided by panic and fear.
As strange as it may sound for a market where profits and losses can be made in mere seconds, there is such a thing as compulsive trading. Trading too often during the day can be a big problem for novice traders, as they will make wrong decisions and let panic guide their actions. Monitoring the markets is an absolute must, but one should necessarily jump on every single opportunity when it presents itself. It is difficult to learn a trading style from day one, though, as errors will need to be made along the way until one finds a rhythm that suits his or her needs.
Given the vast plethora of different altcoins one can buy and trade across popular exchanges, diversification is a good idea. At the same time, there is a risk of trading too many altcoins at once, which will take a toll on ones portfolio rather quickly. The best advice is to start with small amounts of one or two coins that seem legit, ate and potentially profitable. As one gains more experience, it is still possible to further diversify the portfolio and trade more currencies.
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.
Read the original here:
5 Most Common Mistakes Novice Cryptocurrency Traders Make - The Merkle
Blockchains are nothing more signed, peer-to-peer, distributed ledger databases. Okay, were all done here.
No?
Alright, blockchains are a bit more complicated than thatand more useful than they might sound. Most will know blockchains from BitCoin, one of the many cryptocurrencies based on them. But cryptocurrencies are only one use for blockchains. Before getting into applications, lets take a look at what a blockchain system looks like and how it operates.
To start, you need to know about public key encryption and digital signatures, because the blocks in a blockchain are digitally signed and the blockchain nodes are authenticated to each other (Fig. 1). This allows them to maintain their copy of the blockchain and determine whether information from other nodes is accurate. Those providing nodes to the blockchain must also have their own encryption keys so they can sign their blocks.
A blockchain is actually a logical entity maintained by a blockchain node. It is designed to be a mostly read-only database that grows over time as blocks are added (Fig. 2). Block payloads are accepted by a node and distributed to its peers. There is an acceptance process and verification of digital signatures, but eventually a block will be validated by enough nodes for the block to be permanently added to the blockchain.
At this point, the added block will be replicated in a majority of nodes, and the rest will eventually catch up. This means that all nodes will have a moving high water mark that the collection of nodes agrees with, but the databases will probably not be identical across all the nodes at any point in time.
The idea is that the payload of a block can be accessed by an external entity and used to generate a subsequent block that will get incorporated into the blockchain. A typical example is where a block contains a logical value that is split in half and assigned to two new blocks. The signatures for these new blocks can be used to allow one of the new blocks to contain this new value. Incorporating the new blocks into the blockchain will mark the original block as used and the two new blocks as active.
The system is robust because the blockchain database is replicated. All nodes can accept new blocks and all nodes do not have to be active or accessible all the time although a quorum is needed to activate new blocks.
The challenge for blockchain systems is to maintain performance and scalability as the system grows. A lot depends upon the frequency of updates and the number of systems involved overall in addition to the network. Many blockchain systems operate on the internet, but that isnt a requirement. They can be used in closed networks as well.
So, back to cryptocurrencies.
A cryptocurrency is a digital asset that can be an exchange medium. These days, cyptocurrencies tend to be implemented using a blockchain. This allows transactions using the cryptocurrency to occur in a decentralized, distributed fashion. Cryptocurrencies are relatively new (the aforementioned Bitcoin started in 2009).
The payload of a block indicates the amount of money involved in a transaction. How these values are created and manipulated depend upon the system being employed and the players involved in the system. Most cryptocurrencies use a timestamping scheme so a trusted third party does not need to be involved in the system.
Most cryptocurrency systems use a proof-of-work scheme to create a new block or BitCoin. BitCoin uses proof-of-work schemes are based on SHA-256. It is also used by LiteCoin. It is also possible to use proof-of-stake schemes as well.
BitCoins are created by mining. This uses the hashcash proof-of-work function that is designed to take a lot of computational cycles but not much else. Specialized hardware has been developed to create BitCoins. The amount of time needed to generate just one BitCoin varies significantly depending upon the hardware used.
Just about any application that requires a registered ledger is a candidate for blockchain support. Many embedded applications simply need a single database, but if there is a need for a more robust solution, blockchains might make sense.
Blockchains have been touted as solutions for all sorts of applications. For example, there are a number of efforts to use them in educational environments. In this instance, the various records, testing, and certifications a person earns are tracked using blocks. This approach allows for the distribution of this information. The blocks normally do not contain all the information, but rather, links to digitally signed packages.
Blockchains can also be used for conventional ledger-based applications. These applications include backend clearing and settlement. They could be used in real estate transactions, for tracking music or other multimedia content, or even for handling contracts.
Blockchain use is still in its infancy. Security remains a key component and it should not be overlooked when considering or using this technology. Incorrect implementations can cause significant security problems. Developers also need to consider the scope of implementation, frequency of updates, and hardware and storage requirements.
Here is the original post:
What's the Difference Between Blockchains, Cryptocurrency, Audit ... - Electronic Design
Singer Tatiana Moroz announced the early beta launch of the first cryptocurrency for artists at The Blockchain Event in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
TATIANACOIN will unite artists and fans through advanced blockchain technology. Fans will be able to steam music while supporting Ms. Moroz, chat with her and other fans, and access unique multimedia content, private concerts and merchandise.
Tatiana Moroz
In a release, Ms. Morozsaid artists struggle in a system that can earn them less than one penny per stream and intense competition for fan loyalty.
After experiencing firsthand the troubles artists face trying to make a name for themselves, I sought a revolutionary way for artists and fans to help each other through incentivized financial support and social connectivity.The only way to achieve this is through the power of the blockchain, a technology that presents countless opportunities for artists and musicians.
TATIANACOIN is the first instance of what we call an ArtistCoin: a digital currency that removes the middleman and smooths contracts, payments and communications. ArtistCoins will enable songwriters, record labels, and publishers to seamlessly register their work, view tamper-proof payment contracts, and distribute songs with all the splits built in.
This will streamline the licensing process and ensure all the parties are fairly compensated.
Visit link:
Singer Tatiana Moroz launches artist cryptocurrency Bankless Times - Bankless Times
There are hundreds of Cryptocurrencies out there right now and its impossible to know all of them by name. With Cryptocurrency now known by people in every corner of the world, developers are coming with new digital currencies to try and convince the users that their coin offers something new or different to what is being offered by the current coins. This has led to many users and investors falling victims to scam coins. Just because a coin is popular, with a lot of followers, doesnt qualify it to be a genuine cryptocurrency.
A lot of cases involving scam in Cryptocurrencies have been reported. According to Cointelegraph, Solomon Barnabas came out bravely to speak of his experience at the hands of vendors of scam coins. Mr. Solomon is quoted as saying that these scam vendors not only caused losses in terms of money, but also in terms of his credibility. Mr. Solomon is one of the many who have lost their money due to these scam coins who sell referral programs to unsuspecting members claiming that crowdfunding is necessary for adoption. These scam coins are restricting the growth of Cryptocurrency, despite campaigns from the already established coins that Crytocurrency is a genuine and worthy investment.
Moving on to the leading scam coins according to Angelina Lazar, an economist and cryptocurrency revolutionary, OneCoin is number one when it comes to scam coins. Angelina has become a popular figure in the Cryptocurrency world due to herwarwith OneCoin. She claimsthat in a months time she will have conclusive information on OneCoins dealings. After a war between her and OneCoin, Angelina claims that she succeeded in getting all bank accounts belonging to OneCoin shut down. She also claims that Chinas UnionPay is not interested in working with OneCoin anymore. According to Cointelegraph, the main problemthat OneCoin faces is that it is not a Cryptocurrency yet. This is an issuethat always arises once they realize that their product doesnt possess the fundamental characteristics of a genuine cryptocurrency.
S-Coin is another coin that Angelina Lazar thinks is a pyramid scheme. S-Coin, just like OneCoin, offers promise of hope of releasing a Cryptocurrency in the near future. According toCointelegraph, the act of attaching the price of one Euro to it without considering the basics such as demand and supply, raises a lot of questions. Another thing is that they asked the public to pay Bitcoins for S-Coins and claiming to send the coins via mail to their clients.
Cryptocurrencies are digital coins and hence if S-Coin is a real digital currency transactions should be made in a real blockchain.
EarthCoin is the next coin with characteristics of a scam coin. Most of its coins initial supply were generated by the developer. This raises eyebrows because coins should be generated over time through a form of mining. Its website is poor and there is no real information on what the coin intends to achieve and its current volume. All these point to signs of pump and dump schemes. Remember its the responsibility of you the investor to conduct proper due diligence on the coins you want to invest in.
You may also like:Bitcoin: Shut Down in Venezuela!
Here is the original post: