NSA 'suspected of spying on European Commission'

Posted on by

"Regin", a sophisticated spying program detected in the attacks, is identical to a secret cyber weapon developed by the NSA whose existence emerged in documents leaked by Edward Snowden, according to a report in Spiegel's online edition.

The program has also been identified in a "serious cyber attack" on the European Commission in 2011, and found on a USB stick belonging to a member of Angela Merkel's staff, according to German press reports.

It was found on the computers of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, according to Austria's Der Standard newspaper.

Costin Raiu, head of research at Kaspersky, told Spiegel a detailed comparison of Regin with the "Qwerty" code leaked in the Snowden documents showed they were the same.

"We're confident that what we here in front us is the key logger module of Regin," Mr Raiu said. "According to our technical analysis, 'Qwerty' is identical with plug in 50251 of Regin."

Regin has been described as the most dangerous cyber weapon since Stuxnet, the computer worm used to attack the Iranian nuclear programme in 2010.

It is believed to include a sophisticated key logger program that can record all data entered into a computer and send it undetected over the internet.

Visit link:

NSA 'suspected of spying on European Commission'

Posted in NSA

New medical marijuana bill revives hope for sick Floridians

Posted on by

Disappointed by the failure of last years medical marijuana amendment?

Well, it looks like were getting another and more secure chance, thanks to legislation filed Monday that would legalize medical marijuana for patients with certain conditions.

Last November we saw voters approval of medical marijuana in Florida; 57 percent voted in favor of the amendment. But thanks to another amendment to the state constitution approved in 2006, amendments must garner 60 percent of the vote in order to pass. As would only happen in Florida, that amendment passed with a yes from 57 percent of voters. Ironically, that particular majority rubber stamped an amendment ensuring any subsequent majorities of that size would be invalid.

Which is why, with a clear electoral majority, we are still without medical marijuana in Florida.

While we cant rectify our re-election of a man who was able to slither his way out of the largest fraud settlement in history only by invoking the Fifth Amendment 75 times we may have another shot at legal medical marijuana.

Our great green hope, in this case, comes in the form of St. Petersburg Sen. Jeff Brandes.

Interestingly, Brandes belongs to the Republican Party the party that so enthusiastically venerates Ronald Reagan, whose crusade against weed still earns him the ire of activists and stoners everywhere.

Maybe its because the times are changing; maybe its because of the broad support medical marijuana has in Florida. Maybe people saw the 23 states that allow medical marijuana havent yet descended into hellfire and ruin. Or perhaps it has something to do with cannabis proven ability to help the sick.

In fact, there already is a law on the books in Florida which recognizes this fact. Last year, a specific strain of marijuana, Charlottes Web, was legalized to treat seizures. The strain is famous in medical marijuana circles. Web has a potent amount of CBD, one of the two compounds in marijuana, but lacks THC. CBD produces calming, antipsychotic effects while THC is associated with the high. Charlottes Web actually used to be called Hippies Disappointment, before it was successfully used to treat a severely epileptic girl named Charlotte.

Unfortunately, this law hasnt cut the mustard. Its been so tied down by bureaucracy and challenges that the people who need Charlottes Web still arent able to get it. Brandes bill would cut through the obstacles, and provide marijuana to patients with other diseases.

Continue reading here:

New medical marijuana bill revives hope for sick Floridians

Volokh Conspiracy: Is there an originalist case for a right to same-sex marriage?

Posted on by

My friend and co-blogger Ilya Somin has blogged a few times about the originalist case for a right to same-sex marriage. Reviewing the arguments, he recently concluded: [I]t is no longer possible to claim that there is no serious originalist case for striking down laws banning same-sex marriage. I disagree. It is possible to claim that, and Ill even prove it by making the claim right now: As far as I can tell, there is no serious originalist case for a right to same-sex marriage. Or at least thats what I think so far, based on the arguments that Ilya has provided and linked to in his posts. Ill explain my current thinking here and invite others to show why I am wrong.

Lets start by reviewing the originalist arguments that Ilya has mentioned.

The Calabresi argument. In his essay posted on SSRN, Steven Calabresis primary originalist case for a right to same-sex marriage runs something like this. In U.S. history, it has been common for major political documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and many state constitutions, to say that all men are created free and equal. Concerns with freedom and equality generally undergirded legal reforms in the Reconstruction era, including the Reconstruction era constitutional amendments. Laws forbidding same-sex marriage violate principles of freedom and equality, and therefore they violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which of course was one of the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments.

The Ramsey argument. Michael Ramsey has blogged a tentative originalist case for a right to same-sex marriage. It runs like this: If we assume that an originalist Equal Protection clause establishes an anti-discrimination or equal treatment rule that applies to choices as to who a person can marry, our modern understanding that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are based on discrimination and inequality can lead to the result that such laws violate the original understanding of the Equal Protection clause.

The Eskridge argument. As Ilya recently noted, William Eskridge has briefly blogged an originalist case, too. According to Eskridge, Justice Kennedys 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans began by recognizing that an original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment was to bar caste or class legislation. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage amount to case or class legislation, so they violate the originalist conception of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Somin argument. Finally, Ilya has blogged that he thinks laws prohibiting same-sex marriage amount to unconstitutional sex discrimination. In his latest post, he describes this as an originalist argument, linking to this 2013 post which in turn relied on this article by Steven Calabresi and Julia Rickert arguing that sex discrimination was included in that original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. With the benefit of modern understanding, we can now see that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage involve sex discrimination, so they are unconstitutional. (Calabresi briefly makes a version of this argument at the end of his recent essay, too.)

The structure of these four arguments appears similar. They each work in two basic steps: (A) assert that the Fourteenth Amendment adopts a broad principle, and then (B) argue that same-sex marriage laws violate that principle. The arguments differ slightly in the nature of the broad principle that they assert the Fourth Amendment recognizes. To Calabresi, the principle is freedom and equality; to Ramsey, its equal treatment in marriage choices; to Eskridge, its rejection of caste legislation; and to Somin, its rejection of sex discrimination.

These are important arguments, but heres where I am stuck: I dont yet see how these are distinctly originalist arguments. My primary problem is at step (A), the articulation of the broad principle. I am not an originalist theoretician, so maybe I am missing something. But I would think that for these arguments to be considered distinctly originalist arguments, at a minimum, the process by which we identify the broad principle that the Fourteenth Amendment adopts has to be based on specific constitutional text as it was understood by the public at the time of its enactment. From what I can tell, the originalist arguments made so far havent really done that. As a result, Im not sure there is anything distinctly originalist about these claims.

Consider Calabresis primary argument about same-sex marriage, which is the most thoroughly developed of the four. Calabresi reasons that important historical political documents talked about freedom and equality, and that these basic concepts were an important influence on the 14th Amendment. So far, that seems hard to dispute. The problem, it seems to me, is that important historical documents talk about a lot of broad principles. And the idea of a general principle having an influence isnt the same as directly adopting a particular conception of that principle. Given that, its not clear which of those broad principles made it into the Constitution. Presumably, not all of them did. To bridge the gap, and to show that the specific principle was adopted at the time, I think we need the originalist step of showing how the specific text was originally publicly understood as recognizing that identified principle.

Without that step, I fear that what are being described as originalist arguments may just be products of the Level of Generality Game with the word originalist tacked on. Most students of constitutional law will be familiar with the Level of Generality Game, as its a common way to argue for counterintuitive outcomes. The basic idea is that any legal rule can be understood as a specific application of a set of broad principles. If you need to argue that a particular practice is unconstitutional, but the text and/or history are against you, the standard move is to raise the level of generality. You say that the text is really a representation of one of the relevant principles, and you then pick a principle at whatever level of abstraction is needed to encompass the position you are advocating. If the text and/or history are really against you, you might need to raise the level of generality a lot, so that you get a super-vague principle like dont be unfair or do good things. But when you play the Level of Generality Game, you can usually get there somehow. If you can raise the level of generality high enough, you can often argue that any text stands for any position you like.

Read this article:

Volokh Conspiracy: Is there an originalist case for a right to same-sex marriage?

First Amendment Rights of Judges in the Spotlight

Posted on by

The First Amendment rights of judges are a hot topic these days.

Just a few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether states can bar judicial candidates from soliciting campaign donations without violating their speech rights.

Across the coast in California, the states highest court has decided that judges there will no longer be allowed to belong to nonprofit youth organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation or other criteria, effectively barring membership to the Boy Scouts of America.

The group wasnt mentioned specifically by name, but the California rule was proposed last year in response to the Boy Scouts policy of excluding gays from staff and leadership roles. After hearing from scores of judges and lawyers, some of whom fiercely opposed it, the California Supreme Court on Friday voted to adopt the rule, which takes effect next year.

The U.S. Supreme Court case is about the political speech rights of judges, while the California ethics rule deals with limits on free association. But both raise the question of how much First Amendment protection should be granted to judges who have a special duty to be fair and impartial, says Harvard University constitutional scholar Noah Feldmanin acolumn for BloombergView.

Writes Mr. Feldman:

For the moment, the Supreme Court would probably uphold the California ban on judges associating with the Boy Scouts, reasoning that judges are special and that the states interest in controlling their behavior is different from its interest in regulating the Scouts.

Another feature that might conceivably matter is that state judges are also state employees. In last weeks oral argument, the question of state employment arose, with the justices asking whether it made sense for the campaigning activities of sitting state judges to be regulated differently from the campaigning activities of nonincumbent candidates for judicial office.

Yet if the Supreme Court expands the political speech rights of judges this term, it could be the beginning of the end for state laws that limit judges free association. Then we wouldnt be able to rely on the canons of judicial conduct to create the appearance of fairness. We would have to rely instead on vigilance and common sense, and choose judges who are actually fair and actually dont discriminate. Which doesnt sound so bad after all.

A spokesperson for the California Supreme Court didnt have a comment in response to Mr. Feldmans column.

See more here:

First Amendment Rights of Judges in the Spotlight

Local First Amendment activist acquitted in trial involving Church Directory at courthouse

Posted on by

A local man was acquitted by a visiting Franklin County judge Tuesday of criminal mischief in a case that had revolved around different interpretations of the First Amendment. Ultimately, however, the judge rules on another issue.

Eliot Kalman, 69, of Athens was arrested on Oct. 28 after being caught placing stickers advocating constitutional separation between church and state on a Church Directory sign affixed to the front of the Athens County Courthouse. Criminal mischief is a third-degree misdemeanor.

During Kalman's trial Tuesday in Athens County Municipal Court, Dale Crawford, a retired judge from Franklin County, ruled that while Kalman, a former president of the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter, has no constitutional right to deface somebody else's property, he did, technically, have a form of permission to place stickers on the Church Directory.

"The defendant (Kalman) in this circumstance has the privilege because the county Commissioners have not taken that (privilege) away," Crawford said in his final statements. "If the county Commissioners want to limit a part of a county building to a specific use and grant it to specific improvement people, they can do so by resolution."

Crawford ruled to acquit Kalman of the criminal mischief charge before the jury could vote on the case after Kalman's defense submitted a request for a "rule 29 judgment of acquittal," a motion a judge can grant if he agrees that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient. Crawford granted the motion, and Kalman was declared not guilty by the judge.

After the trial, Kalman was elated, if a bit shaken.

"First time I've ever been arrested in my entire life, and it was scary," Kalman said, referencing his Oct. 28 arrest. "I'm relieved that it (the trial) is over. I'm glad that I wasn't found guilty. The nature of a 'directed verdict,' that's what we had... means that they (the prosecution) didn't even come close."

Kalman testified during the trial that he did in fact place the sticker on the glass of the Church Directory on Oct. 28, and his defense acknowledged that he had placed similar stickers on the glass multiple times throughout 2014. His defense also provided photographic evidence of other stickers placed on the glass, most of which, Kalman said, were not his. Kalman throughout the trial maintained that he placed the stickers as a statement about the Directory violating the First Amendment separation of church and state.

However, Judge Crawford said in his judgment that he was not in Athens to decide on the appropriateness of the Church Directory's placement outside of the county Courthouse.

"I'm not here to decide whether that's proper or not proper on the county building," he said. "I'll let some other person take care of that issue. It sounds a little simplistic to me."

Continue reading here:

Local First Amendment activist acquitted in trial involving Church Directory at courthouse

Decentral Talk Live. Ep#33: Patrick Cines of the College Cryptocurrency Network – Video

Posted on by


Decentral Talk Live. Ep#33: Patrick Cines of the College Cryptocurrency Network
The College Crypto Network (CCN) is a "A decentralized, international NPO dedicated to forming a robust network of student groups and academics for blockchain education, advocacy, and innovation.

By: decentral.tv

Read more here:

Decentral Talk Live. Ep#33: Patrick Cines of the College Cryptocurrency Network - Video

D1P10 – TNABC 2015 Miami – Harry Yeh – MD Binary Financial – Trading Bitcoin – Video

Posted on by


D1P10 - TNABC 2015 Miami - Harry Yeh - MD Binary Financial - Trading Bitcoin
TNABC 2015 Miami - Harry Yeh - MD Binary Financial - Trading Bitcoin Part 8 Bitcoinist.net Presents in Association with TNABC This Video is for archival purp...

By: Bitcoinist.net

Original post:

D1P10 - TNABC 2015 Miami - Harry Yeh - MD Binary Financial - Trading Bitcoin - Video

D2P5 – TNABC 2015 – PETER TODD – BITCOIN CORE DEVELOPER – Bitcoin 1.5 – Video

Posted on by


D2P5 - TNABC 2015 - PETER TODD - BITCOIN CORE DEVELOPER - Bitcoin 1.5
TNABC 2015 - PETER TODD BITCOIN CORE DEVELOPER - Bitcoin 1.5 Bitcoinist.net Presents in Association with TNABC This Video is for archival purposes. http://btcmiami.com - http://bitcoinist.net.

By: Bitcoinist.net

More here:

D2P5 - TNABC 2015 - PETER TODD - BITCOIN CORE DEVELOPER - Bitcoin 1.5 - Video