Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays’ Rebellion – Wicked Local Wayland

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Go here to read the rest:

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Wicked Local Wayland

Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil M. Gorsuch Would Respect the Second Amendment – NRA ILA

This week, President Trump kept one of his most important campaign promises by nominating an originalist judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalias death last February. Scalia was the courts foremost practitioner of originalism and textualism, judicial philosophies that seek to resolve constitutional questions by reference to the language of the document, as publicly understood at the time of its enactment.

This approach led Scalia to author the historic opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes.

Judge Gorsuchs embrace of originalism is a bulwark for our Second Amendment rights. When given the opportunity to consider the matter in his professional capacity, Judge Gorsuch has made clear that he understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

In a case concerning a technical question of what the government must prove to establish a violation of the Gun Control Act, Judge Gorsuch noted that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly. His statements in that case strongly indicate that he would hold the government to a high standard before allowing it to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms.

Its hardly a secret that many in the federal judiciary have not shown the Second Amendment the respect it deserves. Justice Thomas, another originalist on the Supreme Court noted as much in 2015 when dissenting from the courts refusal to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a San Francisco ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept locked away or disabled with a trigger lock. Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendments core protection for the right of self-defense, Thomas wrote, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.

Opposition to Judge Gorsuchs confirmation has already started amongst gun control supporters, and they are once again proving that dishonesty is no impediment in pursuing their agenda. Addressing Judge Gorsuchs nomination, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed that Judge Gorsuch favors felons over gun safety. This claim was nothing more than a desperate attempt to smear the distinguished jurist, which is why it has already been found to be false by the fact-checking (and left-leaning) website Politifact.

Disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton are wailing, gnashing their teeth, and vowing to obstruct Judge Gorsuchs confirmation. Their tactics, as usual, are heavy on hysteria and short on facts or reason.

Yet both sides understood that the 2016 presidential election was largely a referendum on the future direction of the U.S. Supreme Court. The American people spoke loudly and clearly in favor of respecting the original meaning of the Constitution. The Senate should therefore do its sworn duty and swiftly confirm Judge Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

See more here:

Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil M. Gorsuch Would Respect the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

Optimism over second amendment rights on display at Salisbury Gun & Knife Show – FOX 46 Charlotte

SALISBURY, NC (FOX 46) - There's renewed optimism among those in the gun business as gun owners say this new administration brings a better sense of stability to their second amendment rights.

It's a feeling those at the Salisbury Gun & Knife show say they haven't felt in nearly a decade.

"I'll think you'll see what the second amendment supporters feel is a repair on their rights and what they feel was tarnished over the last eight years," said promoter, BrandonCupp.

"I think everybody feels safe at least for the next four to eight years that they aren't going to have any problems getting any guns or buying any guns that they want," said Adam Ervin of Pistol Pop's Firearms.

Vendors are looking forward to the end of panic buying that took place during the Obama Administration. Those feel that over the next four years this will be a positive change for those that are pro second amendment.

"I think the gun industry is going to get better. People still want to protects themselves. One man, one administration is not going to keep crime down. It may help keep it down, but it won't totally be snuffed out," said Todd Edwards with Gold Rush Carolinas..

See the original post here:

Optimism over second amendment rights on display at Salisbury Gun & Knife Show - FOX 46 Charlotte

Journalism and the First Amendment on Trial at Standing Rock – YES! Magazine

Jenni Monet, a Native American journalist, was arrested last week while covering Standing Rock. Youd think that would trigger a lot of support from the national and regional news media.

There is an idea in law enforcement called the thin blue line. It basically means that police work together. A call goes out from Morton County and, right or wrong, law enforcement from around the country provides back up.

You would think journalism would be like that, too.

When one journalist is threatened, we all are. We cannot do our jobs when we worry about being injured or worse. And when a journalist is arrested? Well, everyone who claims the First Amendment as a framework should object loudly.

Last Wednesday, Monet was arrested near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. She was interviewing water protectors who were setting up a new camp near the Dakota Access pipeline route on treaty lands of the Great Sioux Nation. Law enforcement from Morton County surrounded the camp and captured everyone within the circle. A press release from the sheriffs Department puts it this way: Approximately 76 members of a rogue group of protestors were arrested.Most were charged with criminal trespassing and inciting a riot.

As was Monet.She now faces serious charges and the judicial process will go forward. The truth must come out.

But this story is about the failure of journalism institutions.

The Native press and the institutions that carry her work had Monets back. That includesIndian Country Media Network,YES! Magazine, and theCenter for Investigative Reportings Reveal. InCanada the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network reported on the story during its evening news. And,The Los Angeles Times has now weighedas well in with its own story written by Sandy Tolan whos done some great reporting from Standing Rock.The Native American Journalists Association released a statementimmediately:Yesterdays unlawful arrest of Native journalist Jenni Monet by Morton County officers is patently illegal and a blatant betrayal of our closely held American values of free speech and a free press, NAJA President Bryan Pollard said, Jenni is an accomplished journalist and consummate professional who was covering a story on behalf of Indian Country Today. Unfortunately, this arrest is not unprecedented, and Morton County officials must review their officer training and department policies to ensure that officers are able and empowered to distinguish between protesters and journalists who are in pursuit of truthful reporting.

Yet inNorth Dakota you would not know this arrest happened. The press is silent.

I have heard from many, many individual journalists. Thats fantastic. But what about the institutions of journalism? There should news stories in print, digital and broadcast. There should be editorials calling out North Dakota for this egregious act. If the institutions let this moment pass, every journalist covering a protest across the country will be at risk of arrest.

After her release from jail, Monet wrote for Indian Country Media Network,When Democracy Now!s Amy Goodman was charged with the same allegations I now facecriminal trespassing and riotingher message to the world embraced the First Amendment. Theres a reason why journalism is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, she said before a crowd gathered in front of the Morton County courthouse. Because were supposed to be the check and balance on power.

The funny thing is that journalism institutions were not quick to embrace Goodman either. I have talked to many journalists who see her as an other because she practices a different kind of journalism than they do.

Monets brand of journalism is rooted in facts and good reporting. She talks to everyone on all sides of the story, including the Morton County Sheriff and North Dakotas new governor. She also has street cred and knows how to tell a story. Just listen to her podcast Still Here and you will know that to be true.

So if we ever need journalism institutions to rally, its now. Its not Jenni Monet who will be on trial. Its the First Amendment. Journalism is not a crime.

This article was originally published atTrahantReports. It has been edited for YES! Magazine.

The rest is here:

Journalism and the First Amendment on Trial at Standing Rock - YES! Magazine

FISC Rejects Claim That Public Has a First Amendment Right to Court Decisions About Bulk Data Collection – Lawfare (blog)

Citizens do not have a First Amendment right to read the full court decisions that support the legality of the NSAs bulk data collection program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concluded in an opinion issued on January 25th.

The court rejected a motion from several civil rights groups that argued the First Amendments right-of-access doctrinewhich entitles the public to access certain court proceedings and documents, typically in criminal casesapplies to those bulk-collection decisions.

The motion was filed in November 2013, five months after leaks by Edward Snowden publicly revealed the existence of an NSA bulk collection program. The motion sought the FISCs opinions addressing the legal basis for the bulk collection of data. According to a government filing, there are four such decisions, all of which were publicly released in 2014 after declassification reviews: an August 2013 amended memorandum, an October 2013 memorandum, an opinion and order (whose date was redacted), and a memorandum opinion, also with a redacted date.

Since those documents were released, the only remaining question for the FISC to answer was whether the public had a right to access the material redacted from those decisions.

The court dismissed the motion on standing grounds. It concluded that the movantsthe ACLU, the ACLU of the Nations Capital and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinicdid not have a right to the documents and therefore did not suffer an injury when parts of the documents were kept secret. As a result, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the motion.

The ACLU made a similar First Amendment argument in a motion it filed in October seeking access to all major FISC decisions issued since Sept. 11, 2001. (For more on that motion and the right-of-access doctrine, see our previous coverage here.) The court has not yet ruled on that motion, but it set a deadlineof March 10 for the government to respond to the ACLUs arguments.

The Right of Access Argument

Like its motion from October, the ACLUs 2013 motion relied on the right of access doctrine, which generally requires court proceedings and documents to be open to the public if they meet a two-part test, known as the experience and logic test: they have historically been public (the experience prong) and public access offers some kind of discernible benefit (the logic prong). The idea behind the doctrine is straightforward: The First Amendments freedom of speech, press and assembly clauses provide the public with a right not only to speak or to take action, but also to listen, observe, and learn, as Justice Brennan wrote in 1980.

Both the ACLU and the FISC applied the experience and logic test to decide whether the public has a right to access FISC opinions, but they reached opposite results.

On the experience prong, the ACLU argued that courts normally disclose opinions that interpret the meaning and constitutionality of statutes, so there was historical precedent for the FISC to do the same. But the FISC said that framing was too broad. It said the real question is whether FISC proceedingsrather than court proceedings generallyhistorically have been accessible to the public. FISC opinions have not typically been released to the public, so the court concluded that the ACLU did not satisfy the experience prong of the test.

On the logic prong, the FISC similarly rejected the ACLUs arguments. While the ACLU claimed that public access would improve the legitimacy, accuracy and oversight of the FISC, the court said those arguments were just conclusory. Citing its 2007 opinion in In re Motion for Release of Court Records, the court identified a variety of risks that might come about with such access, including the possibility that public access would encourage the government to forgo surveillance in certain cases and conduct surveillance without the courts approval in cases where the need for court approval is unclear. It concluded that the ACLU made no attempt to dispute or discredit these detrimental effects.

The FISCs decision is bad precedent for the ACLUs pending motion, filed in October, that makes essentially the same First Amendment argument. But its not necessarily fatal. The October motion seeks a broader range of materialall of the FISCs major opinions and orders dating back to the September 11 attacksand includes additional bases for relief beyond the First Amendment, arguing that Rule 62 of the FISCs procedural rules allows third parties to motion for public release of decisions, and inviting the court to use its inherent supervisory power over its own records to release its opinions. If the government chooses to respond to that motion by the March 10 deadline set by the court, the ACLU will have until March 31 to reply.

See more here:

FISC Rejects Claim That Public Has a First Amendment Right to Court Decisions About Bulk Data Collection - Lawfare (blog)

How Trump can shore up the First Amendment – Washington Examiner

President Trump came to the National Prayer Breakfast last week with cheering words about religious liberty. Together with his picks of Vice President Mike Pence and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, he has made strong inroads among Christian conservatives.

But Trump needs to deepen his knowledge and broaden his interest in religious liberty.

When he talks about religious liberty, he almost always brings up the sole issue of the Johnson Amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 law that prohibits religious organizations from participating in "any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." Trump wants to scrap that, and congressional Republicans have a bill to do it.

Great. Freedom of speech is crucial. Passing and signing the Free Speech Fairness Act, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Lankford to repeal the Johnson Act, would be great.

But Trump needs to look wider at religious liberty, which was for years under attack by President Obama, and recognize that it is a far-reaching matter of conscience that extends to all manner of issues at the nexus of public and private life.

St. Augustine once wrote of a hypothetical man sentenced to death. "What does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey," Augustine asked, "so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?"

This is where the crisis is for the faithful in America today. Trump owes it to the religious conservatives who elected him to enter this fight.

The Obama administration tried to force Hobby Lobby's owners to pay for employees' morning-after birth control, which may function as abortifacients. They also fought the Little Sisters of the Poor to force the nuns to pay for birth control for convent staff. Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has gone after a Catholic School that fired a gay teacher after he married another man.

Also from the Washington Examiner

President Trump is still popular in core Republican strongholds.

02/07/17 12:06 AM

Recently the ACLU sued Catholic hospitals in an effort to force them to perform abortions.

Wedding photographers, bakers and florists have all come under fire by state governments for not facilitating gay weddings.

These are cases where people were forced to choose between the law and a conscientious wish to follow the precepts of their faith. The Obama administration proposed the novel view that First Amendment protections of a person's free exercise of religion ceased the moment he or she entered into commerce.

Obama went out of his way to restrict the First Amendment, speaking regularly of the "freedom of worship," rather than to what the amendment actually refers to, which is the "free exercise of religion." In other words, he tried to pen religious liberty in so it could be exercised only on the Sabbath.

These are the threats to religious liberty that Trump needs to assault first. He needs to protect the conscience rights of believers.

Also from the Washington Examiner

In a marked departure from the previous administration, the Trump State Department announced a wait-and-see approach in response to a controversial Israeli settlement bill Monday.

"We are aware that the Knesset passed legislation relating to Israeli homes in the West Bank built on private Palestinian land," America's diplomatic arm said in a statement.

"We understand that according to Israeli law this legislation could face a number of legal challenges because, among other reasons, this is the first time since 1967 that Israeli civil law is being applied directly to the West Bank, and that Israel's Attorney General has stated publicly that he will not defend it in court.

02/07/17 12:04 AM

He could start by making it clear that the Obama administration's view of the First Amendment was pusillanimous and he does not accept it. The freedom of worship is just a small part of the free exercise of religion.

Trump has a good role model in Judge Neil Gorsuch, his nominee for Supreme Court. In one of his many rulings, Gorsuch quoted court precedent to say, "The 'exercise of religion' often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts."

Importantly, Gorsuch's rulings don't only include Christians, but also have covered Muslims and Native Americans.

Trump could also get to work undoing Obama's birth control mandate, a gratuitous culture-war assault on conscience. The president could make it clear across the executive branch that holding a traditional view of marriage is not bigotry, and those who hold these views thus don't deserve government prosecution or persecution.

Fights over the Johnson Amendment are worthwhile, but secondary, because politics are secondary. For the religious, the things of the world are nothing compared to the eternal. That means the most important thing Trump can do for those millions of Americans for who religious faith is pre-eminently important, is to make sure government isn't coercing them to do what God forbids.

Top Story

President Trump is still popular in core Republican strongholds.

02/07/17 12:06 AM

See original here:

How Trump can shore up the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

Expelled Candidate for DNC Chair Suing Democrats for Breach of First Amendment – Breitbart News

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Vincent Tolliver, who previously ran an unsuccessful campaign forCongressin Arkansas, was expelled from the campaign by interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazil, after telling The Hill he didnt believe his rivalRep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) should become chairman because of his Islamic faith, citing the religions positions on homosexuality.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

His being a Muslim is precisely why DNC voters should not vote for him. Muslims discriminate against gays. Islamic law is clear on the subject, and being gay is a direct violation of it. In some Muslim countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death, Tolliver said.

Clearly, Mr. Ellison is not the person to lead the DNC or any other organization committed to not discriminating based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Im shocked [the Human Rights Campaign] has been silent on the issue. A vote for Representative Ellison by any member of the DNC would be divisive and unconscionable, not to mention counterproductive to the immediate and necessary steps of rebuilding the Democratic Party, he continued.

Having participated in a forum for potential DNC Chair candidates on Saturday, Tolliver was consequently expelled from the race by interim chair Donna Brazile, who described his comments as disgusting.

However, Tolliver has now pledged to take legal action against the DNC, claiminga violation of his constitutional First Amendmentrights.

Tolliver confirmed he would be taking legal action to Breitbart News, saying that the Democratic establishment are denying me due process and are attempting to suppress my voice, in violation of my First Amendment right, adding that he stands by his views on Islam.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment are attempting to prevent me from freely expressing known and indisputable tenets of lslamic law.Moreover, through sleight of hand tactics, interim chair Donna Brazile falsely accused me of discriminating against Mr. Ellison and cast aspersions by suggesting I was intolerant of religious freedom, he alleged.

Furthermore,the DNCs blocking my candidacy is a glaring contradiction to the 2016 Democratic Platform, that as Democrats, we respect differences of perspective and belief, and pledge to work together to move this country forward, even when we disagree.I am a lifelong Democratic who believes in people and not power and elitism which has successfully corrupted the DNC and the Democratic Party, he continued.

The DNC chairmanship election will take place later this month, with the winner being announced February 26th.

You can follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew,oremail him at bkew@breitbart.com

Excerpt from:

Expelled Candidate for DNC Chair Suing Democrats for Breach of First Amendment - Breitbart News

1st Amendment – Visalia Times-Delta

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

In the first two weeks of the Trump administration, the President or his staff have taken actions against, or complained about, the expression of each part of the first amendment. It's like they've never even read it.

Police departments in large cities have had to deal with protest crowds for years, and most of them, most of the time, do fairly well. Now, in the Trump era, departments in even small towns have had to engage in a crash course in how to respond. Most of them are also doing fairly well in respecting their citizen's first amendment rights. Visalia held a protest recently, where organizers expected maybe 80 or 100 people to show up. Imagine everyone's surprise, especially the Visalia Police Department's, when an estimated 500 were on hand to express themselves. VPD must have done a good job, we've not heard of any issues arising from the peaceful protest. (a lot of nonsense on Facebook about it, but that doesn't really count)

I think the protests are the only good thing I've seen happen as a result of Trump winning the Presidency. He's reminded the American people of their basic civil duty, and their right to engage in defending their country. I doubt he thought it would be in response to his actions (or just his presence), though.

We're going to be seeing a lot of this kind of thing in the future. I have no doubt that instigators will try to inflame things by engaging in violence and destruction (as we saw in Berkeley), and of course the Fox News and Breitbarts of the country will try to lay the blame on liberals and liberalism. They'll ignore hundreds of peaceful demonstrations, and focus on the few outliers. After all, that's how they drive their ratings and page clicks. I have no doubt that Robert Reich was correct when he stated on CNN that outside agitators invaded the Berkeley protests, set fires and broke windows, and that they are linked to right-wing organizations. Peaceful protests don't suit their agenda, so it's not unexpected that things like that happen.

I expect more events like Berkeley will happen, as the right wing begins to recognize how badly they're losing the hearts and minds of the public.

To qoute Scotty: "Hold on tight, lassie. It gets bumpy from here."

And since my recent posts have generated a lot of uniformed commentary on the Visalia Times Delta's Facebook page, here some important information:

This is not an "article". I am not a journalist. I am not employed by the Visalia Times Delta, and they do not edit or censor or otherwise control, my posts.

I am a "community blogger" and my blog is hosted at the Visalia Times Delta's page, on Gannett's servers. If you want to become a community blogger, contact the Times Delta. This has been available to the public for several years. Take advantage of it, it's fun!

First Amendment quote and image from

US Courts.gov

.

View original post here:

1st Amendment - Visalia Times-Delta

Credit card surcharges and the First Amendment – The Daily Cougar

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Credit card surcharges are synonymous with cash discounts. However, eleven states, including Texas, prohibitpassing credit card surcharges onto consumers as a way to cover the merchant fees associated with credit card payments. Bans on surcharges are not a new phenomenon in the United States, but when the federal ban expiredin 1984, these bans were largely left to state legislatures.

The most recent case regarding this matter, Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, was heard by the Supreme Court earlier this year and concerned New York businesses that fell under the bans jurisdiction.

The argument was made that banning a surcharge to cover the interchange fees when a customer opts for the use of a credit card in lieu of cash or other similar means was a violation of the First Amendment right of businesses.

While it is legal under the New York statute as well as many others to offer a cash discount, businesses are not allowed to label the transaction fee a credit card surcharge.

The First Amendment argument is weak. The idea that it is meant to protect consumers with transparency is suspect. Aside from refusing merchants the right to label a cash discount or lack thereof a particular way, very little of the legal wording of these provisions mention anything explicitly regarding free speech.

A major problem with the free speech argument is that the enforcement history concerning the charges has been ambiguous over the years. Even the aim of the statute is slightly arbitrary.

Whether these statutes imply that two prices, one for credit cards and one for cash equivalents, is prohibited or these statutes are aimed at curbing bait-and-switch pricing tactics is not entirely clear.

If businesses were forced to convey the reason for the credit card surcharge instead of a cash discount, it would be a way of controlling speech as well.

The reason a business wouldnt want to convey the surcharge: to avoid the awkward conversation of why their customers suddenly have to bear the brunt on the transaction costs, which I imagine is a highly prevalent phenomenon.

Behavioral economic theories play a role in the case but are hard to quantify or find legitimate empirical evidenceaffirming a rejection of the ban. Overall, the argument that could potentially justify the overturn of such bans are not without merit. The surcharges could transfer more power from credit card companies to consumers.

Consumers sentiments could change regarding the frequent use of credit cards as well as provide consumers with more information about transactions with increased transparency. All that aside, even with commercial speech taken into account, these laws most definitely regulate conduct as opposed to speech.

In effect, this renders the First Amendment argument as an appeal that comes off as little more than grasping at straws.

Opinion columnist Nicholas Bell is an MBA graduate student and can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

Tags: Credit Cards, economics

Excerpt from:

Credit card surcharges and the First Amendment - The Daily Cougar

First Amendment: ‘A shameful day’ – hays Post

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute.

On Jan. 27, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, President Donald Trump issued an executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, suspending the refugee program and permanently imposing a religious test for refugees going forward.

Jen Smyers of Church World Service spoke for many people of faith working on behalf of refugees when she called Jan. 27 a shameful day in the history of the United States.

Numerous national security experts and diplomats including more than 1,000 State Department officials have also spoken out, warning that the order is wrongheaded and dangerous. The optics of an American policy that appears to target Muslims seriously tarnishes the reputation of the U.S. in Muslim-majority countries and throughout the world.

The initial chaos and confusion surrounding the rollout is a harbinger of the damage to come from alienating Muslims worldwide, empowering radicals, and abandoning refugees to suffer in camps. Far from making us safer, the executive order is widely viewed as a direct threat to our national security and an assault on American values.

Of all the controversial provisions of the order, none is more problematic and damaging than the religious test that gives priority to refugees fleeing religious persecution if, and only if, they are a religious minority in their country of origin. The intent is clear: Open the door to Christians from Muslim-majority countries while doing everything possible to keep Muslims out.

Although the order does not explicitly mention Muslims and administration officials insist it is not a Muslim ban we know the motive behind the order from Trumps own campaign promise to mandate the complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

Facing fierce backlash last summer, Trump retooled the Muslim ban to make it more palatable, but he did not retreat from his intention to keep Muslims out. Asked by NBC News in July if he was backing away from his Muslim ban, Trump answered:

I dont actually think its a rollback. In fact, you could say its an expansion People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you cant use the word Muslim. Remember this. And Im OK with that, because Im talking territory instead of Muslim.

Now, six months later, Trumps Muslim ban under another guise is the official policy of the United States government.

From a human rights perspective, the most disturbing parts of the executive order bar refugees for four months, cut the number allowed in by 60,000, impose a religious test, and freeze indefinitely the refugee resettlement of Syrians. Taken together, these policies add up to an inhumane, immoral and woefully inadequate response to the greatest humanitarian crisis since World War II.

Contradictions and ironies abound. Trump recently told Christian Broadcast News that he wanted to help Syrian Christians, whom he claimed (without citing evidence) were deliberately kept out while Syrian Muslim refugees were let in under the last administration. But his executive order bars all refugees from Syria indefinitely meaning that Christians facing genocide in Syria will have no haven in America.

Last year the U.S. accepted a small number of Syrians (10,000 as of August 2016) out of the nearly 5 million Syrian refugees. After Trumps order, the number will be zero. Once the four-month ban on refugees from other countries is lifted, the number of projected refugees will be cut almost in half and those seeking entry will face a religious test.

Beyond humanitarian concerns, I am convinced that Trumps order is also unconstitutional. The Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from targeting Muslims for exclusion and favoring Christians for admission; in short, prioritizing some religious groups over others. Lawsuits have already been filed challenging Trump on First Amendment and other constitutional grounds.

If strengthening national security is the goal, keeping out refugees Muslim or otherwise is not the solution. Refugees are currently vetted for over two years before being allowed entry, and no person accepted into the U.S. as a refugee has been implicated in a fatal terrorist attack since systematic procedures were established for accepting refugees in 1980, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.

Orwellian doublespeak cannot obscure the hostility toward Muslims and Islam that animates President Trumps executive order on immigration. A Muslim ban is a Muslim ban by any other name.

On the day we remember the Nazi genocide of the Jews, the United States closed the door to those fleeing genocide today.

A shameful day indeed.

Charles C. Haynes is vice president of the Newseum Institute and founding director of the Religious Freedom Center.

Read more from the original source:

First Amendment: 'A shameful day' - hays Post

Public worker’s speech not protected by 1st Amendment – Cincinnati.com

Jack Greiner 7:17 p.m. ET Feb. 2, 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)

Firma Helget, an administrative assistant with the Hays, Kansas Police Department, discovered recently that not all speech by a public employee receives First Amendment protection. As a result, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of her wrongful termination suit against the department.

The case arose when Helget provided an affidavit to assist officer Blaine Dryden in his own wrongful termination suit against the department. The department claimed it fired Dryden based on his unprofessional and inappropriate conduct at a court hearing in December 2010. But Dryden alleged that was a pretext, to cover up the fact that he was fired for his union activities. Part of Drydens proof that that the department had decided to terminate him before the court incident was the fact that the department had decided, before the December court incident, not to issue him a ballistic vest.

At Drydens request, Helget provided an affidavit asserting that she had been instructed to remove Dryden from the ballistic vest ordering list in early December 2010. In May, 2011, the department fired Helget stating four reasons, one of which was her disclosing confidential information in the Dryden litigation.

In her wrongful termination suit, Helget contended the firing violated her First Amendment right of free speech. The trial court, and ultimately the appellate court, disagreed.

Public employees, unlike private sector employees, are protected by the First Amendment. The reason is simple. The First Amendment prohibits certain conduct by the government, not private conduct.

But courts recognize in the employment setting, the issues are a little different. It would be a pretty tough place to work if a public employee could march into the managers office every morning and tell the manager exactly how inept the manager was. An absolute view of the First Amendment, however, would not allow that employee to be disciplined.

Courts have accordingly, adopted a balancing approach. Public employees may speak out on matters of public concern, but a public employer may protect the efficient operation of the workplace. The daily tongue lashing would no doubt disturb the operation of the office, so in that case, the employee could be disciplined.

Helgets case was not as clear cut. She provided an affidavit in a case that alleged a police officer lost his job for engaging in protected conduct union activity. The affidavit did not immediately affect the operation of the office, in the same manner as the hypothetical.

But in the courts view, Helgets speech was related more to an employment dispute than a matter of public concern, and her voluntary disclosure of confidential information caused her superiors to lose confidence in their ability to trust her with information going forward. Based on this finding, the court had little difficulty rejecting her First Amendment claim.

Given our divisive political climate, it is likely employees public and private will be tempted to air their views. That may result in a lot of tests of the First Amendment over the next four years.

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/2k6w4nc

Read more:

Public worker's speech not protected by 1st Amendment - Cincinnati.com

Possible expansion of lobbying restrictions threaten First Amendment – The Hill (blog)

President Trumps immigration executive order has dominated the spotlight this week. Meanwhile, Washingtons so-called influence industry and those seeking to influence the regulation of that industry focused on another executive order prohibiting certain incoming administration officials from lobbying the administration after they leave government.

While the directives immediate effects are limited in scope, commentary on the order inevitably also has extended to demands for greater regulation of lobbying generally, and specifically so-called shadow lobbying. Putting aside the mellifluous rhetoric, cracking down on shadow lobbyists will have no meaningful impact on preventing corruption, and will merely impose more administrative burdens on citizens First Amendment activities.

At a high level, this grievance is as absurd as claiming that a citizen is exploiting a loophole in the tax code by not earning enough to trigger the threshold for paying taxes. For both policy and administrative reasons, most laws must set thresholds below which they do not apply. If every time someone acting below a regulated threshold prompts someone else to advocate lowering the threshold, the laws scope will constantly expand until everything is regulated. This is both socially undesirable and practically untenable.

Indeed, we see this ill-advised trend in proposals to expand the federal and state lobbying laws, and many of which states have implemented. Last year the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics decided to regulate certain public relations consultants as lobbyists. After a wave of protest and litigation, brought in part by the Center for Competitive Politics on behalf of PR firms, the state legislature acted to reign in JCOPEs overreach. Yet the agency still maintains its ruling covers PR firms if they contact bloggers, volunteer journalists, and social media personalities.

Still, the push to regulate these broader activities as lobbying continues. Last week, the National Institute for Lobbying, a lobbyist trade group, proposed regulating as lobbyists public relations firms, political strategists, pollsters, advertising and media consultants, grassroots and coalition specialists, Internet and digital media experts and others who work to influence public policy decisions on behalf of their clients. As policy advocacy increasingly shifts to these avenues, we should recognize this proposal for what it is: a few traditional lobbyists attempting to impose the same regulatory burdens that apply to them on other policy professionals.

Many state and municipal lobbying laws and regulatory agencies also purport to impose no minimum threshold for lobbyist registration. In Missouri, the Center for Competitive Politics is representing Ronald Calzone, a concerned citizen who merely shared his views on proposed legislation with state legislators, against the Missouri Ethics Commissions charges that he failed to register as a lobbyist. This, despite the fact that Mr. Calzone was not paid or designated by anyone to act as a lobbyist, and merely referenced his affiliation with a non-profit organization with no financial resources in his discussions with legislators.

It is unclear exactly what the anti-corruption rationale is for forcing more individuals to register and report as lobbyists. In U.S. v. Harriss, a seminal case addressing the federal lobbying registration and reporting requirements, the Supreme Court identified a mere informational interest in enabling members of Congress to properly evaluate the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected. The majority opinion never discussed an interest in curbing corruption, and one justice who voted to invalidate the law even noted that this [law] does not deal with corruption.

Curiously, the majority also cited vaguely Congresss interest in self-protection in regulating lobbying. Protection against what? The voices of constituents? Democratic accountability?

At the same time, the court also acknowledged the concern that the lobbying law may act as a deterrent to the[] exercise of First Amendment rights. This deterrent should not be understated. The lobbying laws are not easy to understand. Take, for example, the reporting last week comparing Trumps lobbying executive order with his predecessors corresponding directive. Much of this coverage was inaccurate, due to journalists failure to grasp subtle legal distinctions between President Obamas order defining lobbying in reference to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, versus Trumps order incorporating by reference the LDAs definition of lobbying activities.

These are the types of legal complexities that large corporations and well-funded advocacy groups pay fortunes for attorneys to navigate. Meanwhile, grassroots organizations are left at risk of running afoul of the law. To expand these lobbying laws to cover even more activities that are attenuated from direct lobbying would merely broaden the regulatory burdens without achieving any public benefit.

Eric Wang is a political law attorney in Washington, D.C. and a senior fellow with the Center for Competitive Politics.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Originally posted here:

Possible expansion of lobbying restrictions threaten First Amendment - The Hill (blog)

Infected DRM Files Can Reveal Tor Data – Security Intelligence – Security Intelligence (blog)

Cybercriminals have been using digital rights management (DRM) files in Windows to transport malware for a while. Social engineering was often an integral part of this process since any attempt to open these files in Windows Media Player (WMP) would then generate a pop-up that redirected the targets default browser to an attacker-controlled website. That website was the beginning of an infection.

Now, attackers are using this process for more than just malware. Researchers recently found that the Tor browser and privacy controls can be affected by a malicious DRM file.

Malicious DRM files work by causing Windows Media Player (WMP) to generate a pop-up requesting permission to redirect the default browser to the content providers website to find out how to obtain the necessary play rights, Hacker House reported. Once a user agrees, he or she is sent to a malware-laden page and the infection process begins. However, this only happens when users attempt to open unlicensed files.

But now, cybercriminals have devised a way for a file with a proper DRM license to redirect the browser without so much as a prompt. Not only could this lead to malware, but it could also contribute to a massive loss of privacy for certain users.

Bleeping Computer, reporting on the Hacker House findings, noted that these DRM files can cause problems when opened in the privacy-enhanced Tor browser. Attackers can capture victims credentials surreptitiously by using cryptographically signed DRM files.

The attackers website appears legitimate to detract attention from the fraudulent URL. Users who interact with the site risk revealing their IP addresses or other credentials through normal system calls. For Tor users, many of whom are using the browser specifically to hide these details, this is a worst case scenario.

Hacker House posted a short video that showed how the malware operators can extract a victims IP with a single click. Its easy to see how a malicious, signed DRM file might also silently ping an attacker-controlled URL to report a victims status and location.

Since the DRM signing process can cost around $10,000, only cybercriminals with deep pockets can fund such a scheme. Those who can afford it, however, have a significant advantage when it comes to spreading malware.

This social engineering scheme is sneaky enough to fool even security-savvy Tor users. To be safe, everyone should avoid all unknown DRM files, no matter how enticing the title may be.

Go here to see the original:

Infected DRM Files Can Reveal Tor Data - Security Intelligence - Security Intelligence (blog)

Cryptocurrency exchange Bitsane adds AdvCash, DASH and ICN support – EconoTimes

Tuesday, February 7, 2017 4:35 AM UTC

Ireland-based cryptocurrency exchange platform Bitsane has added the support of AdvCash, DASH and Iconomi transactions. Bitsane users can now trade DASH and Iconomi (ICN) for Dollars and Euro and can also make deposits and withdrawals in AdvCash.

With the addition of more cryptocurrency, Bitsane aims to continue being a fast-growing, easy to use and a reliable solution for trading blockchain assets. Full trading functionalities are open for DASH and ICN and cross-pairs are also enabled.

After evaluating a number of crypto currencies for inclusion on our exchange platform, it soon became clear that customer demand for DASH and ICONOMI was particularly strong. That is why we are excited to be able to respond to our customers requests in this way, Aidas Rupsys, CEO at Bitsane, stated in a release.

Being an open source peer-to-peer cryptocurrency, DASH provides instant transactions (InstantSend), private untraceable transactions (PrivateSend) as well as token fungibility. On the other hand, ICN, a new cryptocurrency, enables investors to invest in the early stages of a project, making it possible for big profits.

Bitsane bitcoin exchange has also introduced the integration of AdvCash, a popular e-wallet service by Advanced Cash company. With this integration, users can deposit and withdraw money to/from their Bitsane account using AdvCash wallet.

The digital currency exchange platform stated that in the coming months, it aims to add more crypto-to-fiat and crypto-to-crypto trading pairs in a move to cater to their users needs.

Scientists Create Programmable Cement, New And Improved Concrete Structures

Seven essential tips to breaking up with sugar

Protect your privacy during turbulent times: A hackers guide to being cyber-safe

Interactive body map: physical inactivity and the risks to your health

Scientists Created Cancer Cure Using Light To Target Tumors

Your smartphone knows a lot about you, but what about your mental health?

Water intoxication: are we drowning in advice to drink more fluids?

Fly From Sydney To LA In 6 Hours With Baby Boom Supersonic Plane

After decades of research, why is AIDS still rampant?

Video: Invincibility Coating, Soft Objects Survive 150Ft Drop Intact

Neuroscience hasn't been weaponized it's been a tool of war from the start

Holograms are no longer the future, but we must not forget them here's why

The rest is here:

Cryptocurrency exchange Bitsane adds AdvCash, DASH and ICN support - EconoTimes

Top 6 Rare Cryptocurrencies – The Merkle

In the world of cryptocurrency, there is a lot of focus on bitcoin and other major currencies. However, there are quite a few altcoins who take the concept of creating a scarce supply to extreme measures. Although scarcity alone does not give a cryptocurrency intrinsic value by any means, it goes to show it can create an illusion of value over time.

The current cryptocurrency with the absolute lowest supply of coins to be recorded so far is bitGold. Its supply only has 10.2299 coins right now, all of which are quite valuable. In fact, the market cap of US$14,473 may look small, but it does mean every BTGOLD is worth over US$1,400. Unfortunately, bitGold only had less than US$100 worth of trading volume in the past 24 hours, making this cryptocurrency less than attractive to investors.

Rather than trying to create an altcoin with a fancy name, 42-coin simply illustrates the available coin supply. All 41.9999 coins have been brought into circulation, establishing a market cap of US$32,019. Not necessarily a favorite altcoin either, as its volume is even lower than bitGold right now.

Quite a few altcoins have tried to piggyback on the Bitcoin name, including bitBTC. With a supply of 43,8132 it is almost as scarce as 42-coin and generates slightly higher trading volumes. The market cap of US$46,854 is not bad, considering bitBTC has no real world use yet.

Not every altcoin with a smaller supply is worth next to nothing. Jinn is one of the few currencies bucking the trend as every one of the available 56,703 coins is worth US$6.56 each. This puts its market cap at well above the US$280,000 mark right now. Dont be surprised if you have never heard of Jinn, though, as its use cases are virtually non-existent.

One of the surprise entrants on the list of low-supply yet valuable alternative cryptocurrencies goes by the name Byteball. Under the GBYTE ticket, a total supply of 100,000 coins has been made available. With every coin surpassing the US$87.24 value, the market cap is on its way to surpass US$9m. Byteball also generated nearly US$120,000 in trading volume over the past 24 hours, making it quite successful in its own right.

When ZCash launched not too long ago, it became clear the supply of this currency would remain somewhat limited for quite some time. With just over half a million coins in circulation right now, the price per ZEC found a new home around the U$38.82 mark. It is intriguing to see this privacy-centric currency reach a market cap of nearly US$23m in such a short amount of time, though. ZCash continues to generate a fair amount of daily trading volume as well, making it quite a popular cryptocurrency.

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.

Visit link:

Top 6 Rare Cryptocurrencies - The Merkle

SibCoin Meets the Needs of Russian Cryptocurrency Community … – newsBTC

SibCoin is developed on a fork of Dash cryptocurrency platform. Dash is currently the sixth largest cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization.

The cryptocurrency industry is flooded with hundreds of altcoins. The open source nature of many cryptocurrency platforms offers an easy way to create and deploy new altcoins. However, unless these altcoins serve a specific purpose or solve a particular problem, they will eventually fade into oblivion.

SibCoin, short for Siberian Chervonets is one such altcoin which is out there on a specific mission meeting the blockchain needs of the Russian community. SibCoin is developed on a fork of Dash cryptocurrency platform. Dash is currently the sixth largest cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization. The highly successful SibCoin recently broke the record after its masternode network volume surpassed that of its parent coin. With increasing adoption, the gap between Dash and SibCoin continues to widen.

Unlike other cryptocurrencies, SibCoin has a unique advantage. The digital currency is created by a group of Russian developers, for the Russian community. In a country where the Western concepts are taken with a pinch of salt due to decades of mistrust, a home-grown cryptocurrency is much easier to accept.

Also, in Siberia and many other Russian cities, people feel that their contributions to the countrys economy are underappreciated. They are also fed up with corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies plaguing the system. They believe that blockchain, with its transparency, can be a solution to all these issues.

SibCoin has broken the barrier which Bitcoin was unable to surpass since its inception. The creators of SibCoin have made further improvements to the Dash protocol by employing additional encryption algorithms to make it much better and more adaptable among the Russian population. At the same time, the SibCoin team is also involved in active promotion and awareness campaigns across Russia to familiarize the population to SibCoin and blockchain technology in general.

As the SibCoin community grows, the cryptocurrency could turn out to be the driving force behind the countrys blockchain revolution.

View original post here:

SibCoin Meets the Needs of Russian Cryptocurrency Community ... - newsBTC

Cryptocurrency: Now in Crimea – Eastern Daily News

While some countries are busy trying to come up with laws to regulate the use of cryptocurrencies, others are busy coming up with laws to legalize digital currencies. In light of the events by the European Commission, member countries of the European Union are coming up with laws to regulate Bitcoin. Russia has however not made such steps, instead its doing the opposite. Last year Russia announced that it considers Bitcoin transactions and exchanges as legitimate in the eyes of the law. This was good news to the Cryptocurrency world considering that Russia is a country where laws relating to capital control are more strict than in most countries.

Dmitry Marinichev, Russias internet ombudsman, has made suggestions to bringthe use of cryptocurrencies to residents of Crimea. With Crimea in need of investors, Mr. Marinichev believes that opening of Cryptocurrency exchanges will help to attract new investors to this region. For this to be successful, a free economic zone will have to be created within the peninsula. Mr. Marinichev also had this to say on regulation of Cryptocurrencies in Russia: Today Crimea is an exclusive economic zone, which makes it possible to start with the opening of Cryptocurrency exchanges operating there absolutely legally. As a result we will see the actual legalization of Cryptocurrencies.

The head of the Working Group For the Assessment of Risks of Cryptocurrencies in the state of Duma of the Russian Federation, Elina Sidorenko highlighted that using Cryptocurrency instruments for international transactions would improve the banking climate on the peninsula. There is truth to that sentiment because major players in the banking industry do believe that the blockchain technology, which is the technology behind cryptocurrency, is the future of global financial system.

There is a significant number of regions in Crimea, which are unbanked. Residents of these unbanked regions of Crimea now have good news because transactions involving digital currencies do not need banks to be validated. Cryptocurrencies are completely decentralized and the blockchain technology ensures that transactions are validated, hence detecting any fraudulent or unauthorized transactions. Alex Fork, CEO of Humaniq had this opinion on the unbanked regions: Unbanked regions usually consist of a financially poor population. the most important thing is to provide them with a new technology available absolutely free of charge.

There have been countries, mostly in the European union, that in recent times are trying to regulate digital currencies because of criminals using them to commitillegal operations. These unbanked regions provide a chance to experiment and finally make a sound decision regarding digital currencies. The residents of these unbanked regions also get a chance to enjoy the exciting advantages of cryptocurrencies. This move by Russia provides a win-win situation for both the regulator and the residents. Its always good news in the cryptocurrency world when a new country joins.

Continued here:

Cryptocurrency: Now in Crimea - Eastern Daily News

The FBI is Worried Criminals Might Use the Private Cryptocurrency Monero – CoinDesk

The privacy-focused digital currency monero has captured the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which has expressed concerns overits use among criminals.

Joseph Battaglia,a special agent working at the FBIs Cyber Division in New York City, said during an event last week that widespread use of the increasingly popular cryptocurrency might impact the way the agency conducts investigations.

Addressing a group of about 150 law students at New York's Fordham University, hesaid:

"There are obviously going to be issues if some of the more difficult to work with cryptocurrencies become popular. Monero is one that comes to mind, where its not very obvious what the transaction path is or what the actual value of the transaction is except to the end users."

Launched in April 2014, monero (XMR) is a cryptocurrency with enhancedprivacy features. A fork of the Bytecoin codebase, monero leverages identity-obscuring ring signatures to make it unclear which funds have been sent by whom and to whom.

The cryptocurrency saw its price soar in 2016, climbing from about $0.50at the beginning of the year to about $12, a 2,760%increase.

Since 2013, the agency has seen "enormous growth" in the number of cases involving digital currencypayments, according to Battaglia. Of those, 75% involved bitcoin, he said, though he mentioned litecoin and monero as other cryptocurrencies the agency has encounteredthus far.

TheFBI Cyber Division looks into a diverse range of online criminal activity.

In 2015, the agency reportedransomware losses of$18mfroma single type of software. Since at least last October, the agency has been investigating a $1.3m bitcoin theft tied to the hacking of theBitfinex exchange.

Battaglias statements came afterhis "high-level" account of a typicalcryptocurrency investigation given at theevent, which oneof a series of blockchain workshops co-hosted withIBM.

Other panelists included Brigid McDermott, vice president of blockchain business development at IBM; Dan Ramsden, a Fordham Business School adjunct professor; and Gregory Xethalis, a partner at law firmKaye Scholer.

Following the event, the special agent said he couldn't provide additional details specifically pertaining to the FBIs investigative techniques surrounding monero when asked by CoinDesk.

Duringthe panel, however, Battaglia described the FBI as "a reactionary organization", addingthat, instead of trying to predict the direction that cryptocurrency use might go, the agency has adopted await-and-see approach.

Battaglia concluded:

"Were going to look at what catches on, and what becomes mainstream, and then were going to keep an eye on that, because usually not long after that is when you start to see some of the fraud and some of the more nefarious uses of that technology."

Photo credit: Bruce Gilbert / Fordham University

CrimeFBIMonero

The rest is here:

The FBI is Worried Criminals Might Use the Private Cryptocurrency Monero - CoinDesk

BCC Cryptocurrency Exchange Launches in Record Time Following Successful Completion of BitConnect Coin ICO – newsBTC

January 30, 2017 BitConnect.co, the team behind BitConnect Coin (BCC) takes pleasure in announcing the completion of its successful ICO. The ICO saw community members buying over 1 million BCCs, paving the way for the next phase of development which included the launch of its proprietary BCC exchange.

During the ICO, the new cryptocurrency was sold at the rate of 1000 BCCs per BTC, and the early adopters received up to 40% bonus on their investment. With enough backers, the platform finished the exchange development in just ten days. The BCC exchange will see a lot of new features in the coming days, including the addition of support for multiple cryptocurrencies alongside BCC.

BitConnect Coins full-node software is openly distributed with a new desktop client for mining and staking the cryptocurrency under proper guidance. BCC holders can now use the existing web wallet to conveniently send the cryptocurrency to BitConnect desktop client and other desired trading platforms. The BitConnect Coin is based on a special POW/POS algorithm for added network security. The algorithm also turns BCC into an interest-bearing asset with a 120% return per year. To gain profits through POS minting, users will have to hold their coins in aBitConnect-QT wallet.

BCC community members can experience a new level of empowerment through the open source platform that connects them socially and financially to a secure, protected community of investors and lenders. With the communitys help, BCC owners can also benefit from the cryptocurrencys exponential price rise by increasing their deposits in the wallet. The interest gained during the period translates to a hefty profit.

Few new features in store for 2017 include the launch of BCC Mining and Staking Pool and its own Smart Card. These features will not only allow community members to earn, but also spend the cryptocurrency for their everyday expenses. The whole BitConnect platform, which started as a concept in Q1, 2016 has scaled to become the worlds fastest growing online Bitcoin community. The website, BitConnect.co features among the top 80k sites on Alexa. More information on BitConnect Exchange is availablehere.

About BitConnect

BitConnect is an open source platform for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency users to earn, learn, but and sell bitcoins to other trusted community members directly.

Learn more about BitConnect at https://bitconnect.co/ Register on BitConnect Exchange at https://bitconnect.co/register Access BitConnect-QT wallet at https://bitconnectcoin.co/guide/10/How-To-Set-Up-BitConnect-Coin-Wallet-on-Windows-Operating-System#Download

Media Contact

Contact Name:Vindee, Marketing Manager Contact Email:bitconnect@tutanota.com Phone:+16415696739 Company Name:BitConnect Ltd Contact Location:Ashford, England

BitConnect.co is the source of this content. Virtual currency is not legal tender, is not backed by the government, and accounts and value balances are not subject to consumer protections. This press release is for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute investment advice or an offer to invest.

Read the rest here:

BCC Cryptocurrency Exchange Launches in Record Time Following Successful Completion of BitConnect Coin ICO - newsBTC

Bitcoin Short-Term Trend Seems to Be Down – CryptoCoinsNews

Bitcoin managed to touch the 5th arc pair of resistance on the 2-hour chart setup. This generated a sell signal.Since then it managed to re-test the arc and was rejected.

The long-term trend is still up. But the short-term trend is likely going to be down. Looking at this bull setup, a reasonable target is the 12 Gann angle at ~ 940. Lets look at a bear setup from the swing high of $1050 (Kraken):I have overlaid the bear setup on top of the bull setup and have labelled the intersection of the 5th arc pair of each setup. There are arrows at each point that stand out as likely targets in the event that a correction gathers force here.

However, while we were issued a sell signal at the touching of the 5th arc at $1050, we have not had another sell signal since then. When/if we see a close below the 1st arc (blue) and/or a close below the 1st square ($1002), we will have another sell signal.

Conversely, when/if price gets through the 5th arc on the bull setup (labelled), we will have a buy signal.

As I continue to believe that a 3rd wave of the correction that began Jan 4th must complete before the next leg of the great rally of 2017 can begin in earnest, I harbor a suspicion that prices will get to the lower end of the range before a buy signal is generated.

However, I am not one to argue with the markets. If price clears the 5th arc pair shown above, and a buy signal is generated sooner rather than later, I will happily give up my bearish thinking

Happy trading!

Remember: The author is a trader who is subject to all manner of error in judgement. Do your own research, and be prepared to take full responsibility for your own trades.

Image from Shutterstock.

Read this article:

Bitcoin Short-Term Trend Seems to Be Down - CryptoCoinsNews