Last week, Nick Quested went to Washington and pulled off a rarity for filmmakers these days: He captured the public imagination without the benefit of Spider-Man or Tom Cruise.

Quested, as some of the 20 million people who tuned into the primetime hearings may recall, testified before Congress about the actions of the Proud Boys during the January 6 insurrection. A veteran documentarian who produced the Oscar-nominated Restrepo, Quested was on the ground at the Capitol trailing the extremist group when hundreds of them amassed in Washington. By then, he had been tracking the Proud Boys for months. The night before the riots, he even trailed Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio as he was released from jail and held a clandestine parking-lot meeting with the head of another extremist group, the Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes.

The committee showed this footage and more in a roughly 10-minute assemblage during the first January 6 hearing this month, the only one to hit primetime and generate substantial ratings. Quested delivered a stern, measured testimony to the violence he witnessed, but the footage went much further with a gripping inside look at seditious rage in action.

RelatedRelated

It was the same kind of suspenseful teaser Quested might use to lure financiers at a film market, but leveraged toward a much larger cause. This weekly column looks at case studies that have relevance to the film community and this one is a striking breakthrough moment: Not since Laura Poitras sat in a room with Edward Snowden to capture his first interview for Citizenfour has a documentary been poised for such potential crossover effect, but the specifics of his project remained unclear. This week, as the hearings continued, I called him up to ask about it.

Quested hopped onto a Zoom call still looking shellshocked from the past few days. Its pretty crazy, he said. Once you give congressional testimony, youre at the center of the world for a second. Im not used to that. The 52-year-old British director, who got his start with music videos, had a disarming sense of humor about the sudden interest in his work. You know what the best part is? he said. I am working for MI:6 and thus I am James Bond. I shouldve come into the testimony with the theme music.

About seven months ago, Quested began pursuing a Proud Boys documentary with the working title 64 Days, an allusion to the period between the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 events, when the Proud Boys solidified into the violent militia that charged the Capitol. For project, which may now become a four-part miniseries, Quested also plans to utilize flashbacks to earlier moments in the Proud Boys evolution, including its 2016 Stop the Steal campaign that fizzled after Trump won the election that year. The filmmaker largely self-financed the project through his company Goldchrest Films, though he may enlist former National Geographic executives Tim Pastore and Matt Renner to take it to market.

Needless to say, Quested turned out to be a good witness in part because hes a skilled director. He managed to weave his filmmaking chops into his testimony, discussing how he worked to find medium and wide shots in an effort to frame the crowd with the Capitol as the backdrop. He sent me a 17-minute highlight reel and its astonishing stuff: He and his team captured everything from the QAnon Shaman spouting nonsense on the street to a sea of rioters storming Nancy Pelosis office and the immediate aftermath of the protestor death that further inflamed the crowds. The camera remains steady throughout, a sober beacon of expert craftsmanship in the midst of total chaos.

Quested claimed he submitted a short cut to major U.S. festivals and was rejected by all of them; he declined to name which ones. However, he now plans to turn 64 Days into a miniseries (one episode each for November and December followed by a two-parter set in January) and hopes to finish editing his 70-odd hours of footage by the fall. The outcome of the January 6 hearings could play a role. Theres a strong possibility this could lead to a trial of a former president, he said.

He added that he wont weave his experiences into the drama. I find it belittles the story to do that, he said, singling out Vice News as the worst offender in that regard. Its like a travel show with war porn, he said. Instead of going to restaurants, they go to frontlines.

However, there was a moment where he became a part of the story: When Proud Boys member Jeremy Bertino was stabbed during a counterprotest at a Black Lives Matter event on December 12, Quested gave him first aid until an ambulance arrived. Was that crossing the line? I dont care even if it is, Quested said.

Its hard to contemplate the complex moral calculus at play here: Quested not only infiltrated a hate group but saved one of the members lives on camera. However, his willingness to engage with such troubling material stems from his conviction about the potential for filmmaking to infiltrate societys messiest corridors rather than observe them with horror from afar.

Quested said he and his producing partner Sebastian Junger (who co-directed Restrepo) had long wanted to explore the extreme rifts in American society. We wanted to make a film about why Americans were so divided when Americans have so much in common, he said. We wanted to tell this in extremis by using groups on opposing sides, whether it was the far left or far right.

Quested perked up when Donald Trump made his infamous stand back and stand by remark in the presidential debate last summer, which galvanized the group. Obviously, the Proud Boys were becoming more and more prominent in American culture over the course of the summer. We were like, Well, are these guys hooligans? Are they brown shirts? Who are these guys? Thats why we reached out. When the president name-checked them, we were like, All right, here we go. After the election, I just reached out and was like, Wassup?'

It turned out that Tarrio was a Restrepo fan, and he wasnt the only one in the group. There were a lot of veterans who werent combat veterans, he said. Theyve done the training, but dont feel that vitality and brotherhood that you get from combat deployment. You dont have that existential need to band together to fight an enemy. You see the Proud Boys come together with a common thread of fighting for Trump.

Quested, who hasnt been in touch with Tarrio for months, said he had no problem spending time around the group. My jobs not to go there to agree or disagree with them or debate them, he said. Im trying to get them to portray their ideology. Im trying to get to the bottom of what they really represent. Ive been all over the world. Whether its militias or dissidents or different political factions, its the same thing. Just because I was with the Proud Boys doesnt make me a part of the Proud Boys.

Questeds willingness to entrench himself in vile company also points to one of the biggest challenges his film may face: The most daring efforts to expose the truth scare off the business. Errol Morris sat down with Steve Bannon for American Dharma and never heard the end of it, while the movie struggled to find a release for months. A similar fate befell Bryan Fogels Jamal Khashoggi documentary The Dissident, as few major companies wanted to risk problems with Saudi Arabia by taking it on. Above all, Questeds project reminded me of the 2020 documentary White Noise: Inside the Racist Right a film produced by The Atlantic that never found a distributor.

Not to be confused with the upcoming Noah Baumbach adaptation of the Don DeLillo novel, Daniel Lombrosos White Noise is an unnerving look at alt-right media figures like Mike Cernovich, Richard Spencer, and Laura Southern. It began as a short film that contained the shocking footage of Spencer shouting Hail Trump! to a roomful of young Nazis in the aftermath of the former presidents election again, footage so powerful it had a crossover effect, exposing the way hate groups felt galvanized by the current moment.

In the feature, Lombroso follows his subjects on globetrotting journeys as they attempt to legitimize their rhetoric into a movement. Exhausting and infuriating in equal measures, White Noise provides a deeper understanding of the alt-rights ascension than any sound bite can capture, but the movie premiered at AFI Docs after facing multiple rejections from major festivals. (Its available for rent on iTunes and Amazon.)

The writing was on the wall from those first pitch meetings, Lombroso told me this past week. They all said this was important journalism, but from a business perspective its the wrong play.

Most filmmakers who struggle for a release blame the industry, but Lombroso makes a convincing case. When we heard from distributors, it sounded like they were afraid of being canceled on Twitter, he said. In the long view, I dont think its bad business at all. Its essential to study extremist movements. If there was a document of the Nazi Party in the 30s as they grew and took over the government, surely that would have mass appeal now. People would study it. Instead, Triumph of the Will did the exact opposite by glorifying it, but people study that film now.

Quested said he believed bigger companies were complicit in simplifying the publics understanding of the January 6 events. There are so few people now to do business with and those companies are trying to commoditize documentaries into subjects, not value the work of the filmmakers appropriately, he said. Our film isnt about January 6. Our film is about why January 6 happened. They havent examined the root causes of January 6. Theyve examined why people turn up there and the events of the day in what I thought was fairly cursory. These things take time.

It is possible for companies to support projects about dangerous fringe groups: the PBS-produced American Insurrection, for example, or HBOs miniseries QAnon: Into the Storm. However, Quested said those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

If youre lucky enough to sell a film, it just becomes the film about that subject, he said. Its like saying, Oh weve done a film about January 6, there cant possibly be another angle.'

Quested cited Poitras work as another example of filmmaking that can engage challenging subject matter for a broader audience. I asked Poitras if she had anything to add about the subject, but she declined beyond recommending Jessica Kingdons Ascension as recent example of ambitious filmmaking that overcame commercial hurdles.

Its true: Kingdons experimental look at the hierarchical nature of Chinese society found distribution via MTV Documentary and received an Oscar nomination. The film explores everything from factory life to a training school for butlers for a fascinating, non-narrative overview of the way China choreographs every facet of its modern identity. I thought it would be more niche, Kingdom told me earlier this year.

However, Kingdon didnt point her camera at hate groups. Her haunting, poetic assemblage and Dan Deacons awe-inspiring score is both compelling and non-confrontational; if its criticism of China had been more explicit, its hard to imagine MTV taking it on with gusto. At the same time, Ascension and Questeds work share an ambitious approach that allows them to explain vast societal forces. Filmmaking can enlighten people to the substance of real-world situations in ways that traditional reportage cannot.

MTV/Courtesy Everett Collection

Look, documentaries are based on fact, but whenever you use editing and music, youre creating an emotional impact, Quested said. It becomes a very effective way of packaging the truth. A lot of people have seen these stories in micro-bites on the news, but they havent seen it all in context. So when you see these events and how quickly they unfolded and how highly charged the rhetoric was, you can see the pattern of the narrative. Thats what were bringing to the table.

Another reason for substantial filmmaking on extremism right now is extremists make movies, however bad. A few days after Questeds testimony, the committee showed a clip of former Attorney General William Barr mocking Dinesh DSouza for his inept 2,000 Mules documentary that attempted to prove voter fraud. Laugh at him all you want, but the movies still out there.

Quested may choose his words carefully these days, but exposing the Proud Boys in action has already shown the potential of activist filmmaking in these fractured times. There are plenty of talking-heads movies with rousing soundtracks and end credits listing URLs where you can learn how to help, but they rarely impact the national conversation. Documentaries and their filmmakers need to wade into the muck to make a difference.

In 2016, I attended a luncheon for the DOC NYC festival that took place just a few weeks after the presidential election and the mood was grim. The late Jonathan Demme was an honoree that day and pushed back on the bad vibes. I dont think the election of Trump changes anybodys personal agenda, he said with a grin. We still have our agendas and were still going to push for meaningful progressive change. The bar is just higher.

It keeps rising. Filmmaking remains a critical means of cutting through the noise, but if the industry doesnt support these efforts, theyre more likely to fade into the madness than expose the truth.

Are you a filmmaker working on a project about American extremism and struggling to find an audience? Or a programmer with curatorial solutions for showcasing this kind of valuable work? Id love to get your input: eric@indiewire.com

Browse previous columns here.

Last weeks column on the potential for Broadway playwrights to improve Hollywood landed before A Strange Loop, thankfully, won Best Musical. Tickets might be elusive these days, but at the very least, try to listen to the soundtrack.

I heard from a few readers in the theater community, including several women who expressed disappointment that the story didnt showcase women playwrights. A few people drew my attention to Honor Roll!, a grassroots advocacy group for women playwrights over 40, and others shared names of playwrights worth singling out. Heres one list sent my way.

A list of women who have created, run and written for shows including Succession, Watchmen, The Morning Show, This Is Us, Better Call Saul, House of Cards, The Flight Attendant, New Amsterdam, Fosse/Verdon, Empire, Masters of Sex, The Chi, Billions, Nurse Jackie, The Americans, GLOW, Orange is the New Black, Homeland, Stranger Things, 13 Reasons Why, any number of Law & Orders, Halt and Catch Fire, all the Chicago shows, In Treatment, This is Us, Maid, Shameless, The Good Fight, The Good Wife, Smash, Happy, High Maintenance, Blue Bloods, Sneaky Pete, The Goldbergs, and so many more.

Katori Halls play The Mountaintop was on Broadway, and she currently runs P-Valley, based on one of her plays. Sarah Treem went from In Treatment to create The Affair. Laura Eason runs Three Women about to premiere on Showtime, Charlotte Stoudt created Pieces of Her, Theresa Rebeck has had four plays on Broadway and created Smash, Liz Meriwether created New Girl and The Dropout, Jessica Goldberg created The Path. Suzan Lori-Parks won a Pulitzer for Topdog/Underdog, created Genius: Aretha and wrote The United States vs. Billie Holiday in 2021. The list goes on and on.

These women include multiple Pulitzer, Tony and MacArthur genius grantwinners, those with work on and off Broadway and around the country. It shouldalso be said that every playwright Ive ever met has a side hustle. For some thats TV and film. For others TV and film was a draw as well as writingfor the stage and they continue to do both. I know many of these women personally and they are fierce.

More names: Lynn Nottage, Dominique Morrisseau, Katori Hall, Suzan-Lori Parks, Tanya Saracho, Theresa Rebeck, Sarah Treem, Jessica Goldberg, Laura Eason, Molly Smith Metzler, Charlotte Stoudt, Liz Meriwether, Lucy Prebble, Leslye Headland, Bekka Brunstetter, Tracey Scott Wilson, Stacey Osei-Kuffour, Leah Nanako Winkler, Pia Wilson, Sheila Callaghan, Jacquelyn Reingold, Susan Cinoman, Marsha Norman, Alison Tatlock, Diana Son, Jennifer Haley, Gina Gionfriddo, Kara Lee Corthron, Neena Beber, Sarah Gubbins, Quiara Alegria Hudes, Jamie Pachino, K.J. Steinberg, Amy Fox, Donnetta Lavinia Grays, Bathsheba Doran, Heidi Schreck, Hannah Bos, Carly Mensch, Liz Flahive, Annie Weisman, Nambi Kelly, Christina Anderson, Tori Sampson, Chisa Hutchinson, Eboni Booth, C.A. Jackson, Monet Hurst-Mendoza, Dipika Guha, Cheryl Davis, Bess Wohl, Jennifer Maisel, Kate Robin, Kate Fodor, Alexandra Cunningham, Melanie Marnich, Marlane Meyer, Allison Moore, Christina Ham, Sigrid Gilmer, Stephanie Liss, Halley Feiffer, Wendy Graf, Gabrielle Fox, MJ Kang, Anna Moench, Moira Buffini, Ali MacLean, Janice Kennedy, Kim Rosenstock, Janine Nabers, Catherine Butterfield, Laura Rohrman, Nikila Cole, Laureen Vonnegut, Stacy Rose, Susan Miller, Melody Cooper, Marilyn Anderson, Karen Zacarias, Jihan Crowther, and many, many more.

Jamie Pachino, playwright and TV writer

Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.

See the original post here:
That Jan. 6 Proud Boys Documentary Will Become a 4-Part Series, but Who Will Have the Courage to Buy It? - IndieWire

Today in 1692,the town ofSalem, Massachusettsbegan hanging witches.

Today in 1943,after many years of heated debate,Congress finally authorized payroll tax withholding.

Today in 1943,Berlinwas declared "Judenrien" (free of Jews).

Today in 1965,Michel Jazyran the mile in 3-minutes, 53.6 secondsbreaking the record set by Peter Snell.

Today in 1980,actor/comedian RichardPryor suffered almost fatal burns at his San Fernando Valley, California homewhen a mixture of "free-base" cocaine exploded. He was hospitalized more than two months.

Today in 1985,the Los Angeles Lakerswon the NBA title by defeating the Boston Celtics. The Lakers had been shut out of a championship series since 1959 when they were based in Minneapolis. The MVP of the winning Lakers was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Today in 1986,General Electric Companybought the RCA Corporation, parent of NBC, for $6.4-billion. At the time, the deal was the largest non-oil acquisition in U.S. history.

Today in 1986,the Rogers Commissionreleased its report on the "Challenger" disaster, criticizing NASA and rocket-builder Morton Thiokol for management problems leading to the explosion that claimed the lives of seven astronauts.

Today in 1993,US officialsadmitted veterans of the Gulf War were suffering from a mystery illness. Later dubbed Gulf War Syndrome, the illness is a chronic multi-symptom disorder with a wide range of acute and chronic symptoms, including fatigue, muscle pain, cognitive problems, rashes and diarrhea. Approximately 250,000 of the 697,000 U.S. veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War are afflicted with it.

Today in1994,a firedestroyed the Georgia mansion of Atlanta Falcons receiver Andre Rison. His girlfriend, rap singer Lisa Left Eye Lopes, later admitted causing the blaze after a fight, and was later sentenced to probation.

Today in1997,thefinal episode of Married with Children aired on Fox,ending the series 11-season run.

Today in 2001,Patrick Roybecame the first NHL player to win three Conn Smythe Trophies(and hes the only one to do so).

Today in 2013,Edward Snowdenpublicly made his identity known as the leaker of NSA documents.

Today in2014,Laverne Coxbecame the first transgender person to appear on the cover of "Time" Magazine.

Today in 2016,President Barack Obamaofficially endorsed Hillary Clinton as Democratic Presidential nominee. In a video he posted online, Obama added: Look, I know how hard this job can be. Thats why I know Hillary will be so good at it.

Today in2017,tennis player Venus Williamscaused a car accident that lead to the death of another passenger in Palm Beach, Florida.

Today in 2019,Ali Strokerbecame the first actress in a wheelchair to win a Tony awardfor her role in the musical, "Oklahoma!"

Continued here:
'Married....With Children' Signs Off On This Date in 1997 After 11 Year Run - iHeart

TNW main stage in 2019 (Photo by Dan Taylor - Dan Taylor).

Is it a festival? A business conference? One big party? Whatever it is, it works. The Next Web Conference in Amsterdam has been a staple in tech events for 15 years now. Not everything has stayed the same though. COVID shut down the event space, the company was acquired by the Financial Times, and leadership changed. So with a new conference edition just around the corner, it is time to catch up and look ahead.

Next week, The Next Web Conference will kick off once again. On June 16th and 17th, over 10,000 people will flock to Taets Arts and Event park on the outskirts of Amsterdam to listen to speakers, connect with thousands of businesses and raise their glasses.

Has the Dutch workforce mastered all digital skills? Find out

The event has come a long way in the past 15 years. What started as a small get-together with 250 attendees ballooned into a globally known brand. The inspiring leadership of founders Patrick de Laive and Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten made the company into what it is today: an event organiser, media company, range of coworking spaces and programmes to boost startups that likes to do things just a little bit differently than the norm.

To continue TNWs growth, it was time to shake things up. Last year, Veldhuijzen van Zanten stepped down as CEO and named Myrthe van der Erve as his successor. So she is getting ready for her first real TNW Conference as the companys new leader.

TNW Conference feels like a festival, but we are also about doing business. We want to become a global super-connector. For Van der Erve, this means making sure TNW is being used to showcase the best of Dutch talent on an international stage. We believe that it is our role to help the Netherlands punch as one.

Thats why she brought in Zach Butler as Events Director. With over ten years of experience in the event business and involvement in, among others, London Tech Week, his task is to bring TNW Conference to the next level.

TNW has been moving up some levels for a while now. For example, their conference has been growing steadily over the years. As a result, The Financial Times acquired a majority stake in the company in 2019, providing them with the backing of a global media and events company.

It is good that FT is willing to invest in growth, says Van der Erve. Its great that we can team up with such an organisation on different things. For example, they helped us to double down on marketing. During COVID, we could use their event experience to move TNW Conference online. And they helped us recruit Zach.

For Butler, working at TNW and partnering with FT is a two-way street. FT is operating in spaces where corporates thrive, while our founders were able to start something no corporation would ever be able to. As such, it is the perfect match.

Despite the acquisition, TNW is operating as a completely independent brand. Van der Erve sees the connection between two companies more as a family thing. We both are global brands, but they are bigger, more corporate focused and a real authority in media land. To us they are the father that guides us in the right direction.

That father figure proved valuable in the past two years, especially when COVID shut down the event business entirely. As a result, TNW Conference had to move online in 2020, while in 2021, they were able to host a hybrid event. It was way smaller than usual, though. FT has a big event business. So they helped us out when moving online, says Van de Erve.

TNW is happy to be back offline when it comes to its event. However, the forced shutdown did provide valuable lessons. The biggest thing I learned was that diverse businesses have an advantage, Butler says, looking back. While their spaces were also largely empty during this time, with their news website and consultancy arm, they continued to be a thriving platform for startups. We can serve our audience outside the event as well.

Van der Erve: We have the potential to further build on that business diversification. Its important for us to create synergy in a unified business, to help our users better, faster and cheaper. Despite the different arms of the TNW brand, the event the reason TNW started back in 2006 is still the core pillar.

Our number one mission is still to be the ultimate connector in the Dutch ecosystem, Butler says. Traditionally, TNW is known for its Amsterdam presence. With the event taking up ever larger and more exciting venues around the city. However, Butler and Van der Erve are looking beyond the Dutch capital, even beyond The Netherlands.

Butler: If our goal is to help the Netherlands startup community punch as one, we need to be in all four corners of the country, helping unite fragmented ecosystems. I believe that it is my role to uncover every startup in the Netherlands, and connect them to someone or something that will help multiply their journey.

Make that a European thing, as Butler and Van der Erve admit they are also eyeing other countries for a TNW Conference. We want to become more European, says Butler. He says an excellent place to start decentralising the TNW Brand would be Ireland. We are seeing strong interest in an international brand helping accelerate a pretty exciting but currently underserved Irish startup ecosystem. We can take what TNW does and help accelerate the ecosystem there. We are part of an innovative culture with a tone of voice that works. Different cities are interested in speaking with us about the future.

First up, however, is Amsterdam. With a sold-out exhibition space, 10,000 visitors, over 1,500 startups, and a packed line-up of speakers, its like TNW has never been gone. For Van der Erve, it is her first real TNW. The last conference was in September. I had just become CEO then, which made it different for me. Now, my role will be more outward-facing. Im ready to meet so many more players in the ecosystem.

For Butler, it is his first conference as part of the TNW-team. Ive been twice as a visitor, in 2018 and 2019. It was great seeing so many people of the Dutch ecosystem meet, do business and have fun while doing so.

For this edition, Butler is also excited about seeing some of the speakers. The line-up is what I believe drives people to TNW. For instance, Edward Snowden is doing an Ask me anything live on stage. Hes never done a live, unfiltered Q&A.

Mo Gawdat of Google X and Tim Berners-Lee are among the other notable speakers. Butler also boasts a big opening ceremony, as is traditional for TNW Conferences. In line with the companys ambition, the ceremonys theme will be European tech united. Butler keeps the what and how under wraps. But overall, the goal is to create a positive motion and connections.

Catch our interview with Paul Down, Head of Sales at Intigriti.

Read more:
With TNW 2022 around the corner, a look to the future - Silicon Canals

Elon Musk isalmost everywhere.

Not a day goes by that he doesn't tweet. When it's not news about one of his multiple companies -- Tesla (TSLA) - Get Tesla Inc Report, SpaceX, The Boring Company, Neuralink -- he posts about politics, geopolitical affairs, or engages with his millions of followers on a variety of topics, ranging from his states of mind to metaphysical questions such as happiness.

Often the tweets are about his quarrels and enmities. Basically, when Musk's tweets aren't about his companies, they're about him.

For two months, since April to be precise, he has monopolized the headlines with his ongoing acquisition of Twitter for $44 billion. This takeover, which is supposed to be finalized by the end of October, has made him more political. It comes in the wake of his public support for Ukraine since it was invaded by Russia on February 24.

This media overexposure is not about to recede as Musk knows how to feed it. It's all the more difficult to ignore him because the billionaire is one of the main reasons Tesla's stock market valuation hit $1 trillion last fall.

He is not only the CEO of the electric vehicle manufacturer, but also the chief product officer, the chief marketing officer and above all the spokesperson. For those who doubt it, Tesla stock had a tough time when Musk shifted his time in April and May, talking mostly about his bid to buy Twitter. Investors were worried he will be distracted.

Musk's importance to Tesla is equal to his importance to SpaceX. The rocket company is on a mission to take humans to live on Mars. This bold ambition is based on Musk's vision.

The richest man in the world has decided to use his platform to alert his millions of followers to another problem that concerns him. He has just revived a new worry, that of spying on American citizens by the CIA, saying that he would be surprised if he was not being spied on.

Musk tweeted a sort of meme with the logo, the name of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the following message:

"Does anyone else feel like their (sic) being watched?"

"You are," responded tech entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, who is who is accused of netting millions from his Megaupload file-sharing service. "24/7 on all your devices and online services, including your own Starlink. In your case it's not just mass surveillance. You are a priority target. Welcome to the club."

Which Musk confirmed by commenting on the post.

"I would be shocked if Im *not* being spied on haha," the billionaire said without saying which agency might be spying on him.

"My only ask is that anyone spying on me please not affect call quality too much or I cant hear whats being said!"

Musk did not provide any evidence to support his claims, which some Twitter users pointed out to him.

Scroll to Continue

"Prove it that it's a bad thing! I dare you," said one user.

The CIA did not respond to requests for comment from TheStreet.

It's noteworthy that SpaceX has national security contracts, including the launch cargo for NASA, a secretive spy satellite for the intelligence community and national security payloads for the US military. Some of the mission might require Musk to have security clearance.

In February,Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico raised alarms that the CIA is again spying on Americans.

They alleged, in a letter, that the Agencyhas a secret, undisclosed database of information collected on Americans. Although neither the agency nor lawmakers wanted to release details about that data, the two senators say the CIA had long hidden details of the program from the public and Congress.

Wyden and Heinrich, both democrats, called for more transparency from the CIA, including what kind of records were collected and the legal framework for the collection.

Information that the intelligence community gathers domestically has long raised concerns, not least because of past violations of Americans' civil liberties. The CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) have a mission abroad and are generally prohibited from investigating Americans or American companies by the CIA's 1947 charter.

But the collection of foreign communications by American spy agencies results in the collection of American messages and data.

In 2013, NSA contractor turned whistle-blower Edward Snowden disclosed to the public the existence of a program of data collection, known as PRISM, using extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence.

It was ruled unlawful by a court.

Last year, a government watchdog disclosed two CIA data collection efforts. Wyden and Heinrich claimed in February that the agency is likely to be again subjecting Americans to warrantless searches.

The CIA released a declassified report on one of the program in February, but declined to declassify the other to protect "sensitive tradecraft methods and operational sources,"the agency said,

"What these documents demonstrate is that many of the same concerns that Americans have about their privacy and civil liberties also apply to how the CIA collects and handles information under executive order and outside the FISA law," the two senators said in a press release. In the release they quoted the aletter sent to senior intelligence officials in April 2021.

"In particular, these documents reveal serious problems associated with warrantless backdoor searches of Americans, the same issue that has generated bipartisan concern in the FISA context.

Wyden and Heinrich learned about this program because they're members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. They urged top spy officials to declassify the details of this secret program.

Continue reading here:
Elon Musk Has a Message for The CIA - TheStreet

Even though the last couple of years have seen a number of crypto-centric events pop up all over the globe, none can be compared to Consensus, a 4-day conference that helps bring together some of the biggest names from within the global economic landscape.

In this regard, Consensus 2022 will take place between June 9 12 in Austin, Texas and will be curated/managed by Coindesk, one of the worlds most prestigious crypto media publications. To elaborate, this years event will see the likes of Sam Bankman-Fried, Abby Johnson, Dan Schulman, Balaji Srinivasan, Edward Snowden, Jeremy Allaire, amongst others, discuss in detail a host of issues related to digital asset investments, NFTs, DeFi, regulation, Web 3 and the Metaverse.

Additionally, the conference will also witness heavy participation from a number of developers, creators, investors, policymakers, executives and academics from across the world

This full-day workshop is set to commence on June 10 and end the day after. The goal of this highly anticipated session is to help inform attendees regarding Fetch.ais immense capabilities surrounding futuristic technologies such as AI (Artificial Intelligence), Machine Learning (ML), and Blockchain-based toolkits.

Fetch.ai is a Cosmo SDK-centric blockchain and is designed to help usher in a high level of automation in relation to any chain/protocol. As part of the 2-day event, participants will be shown how to devise novel decentralized applications (dApps) on the Fetch.ai network and also be given a demonstration of the Fetch.ai App that helps connect individuals and businesses without the need of an intermediary. Lastly, attendees will be provided with access to Fetch.ais decentralized privacy solution DabbaFlow.

Set to start at 7 pm on June 10, the Coin Center Annual Dinner hosts some of the most reputed individuals working within the blockchain sector today. As part of the evening, attendees will be rubbing shoulders with the folks who have been touted to help the crypto market evolve and reach its true potential.

A brief one-day event, Health 3.0 How Decentralization Will Re-Invent Healthcare, as the name suggests is a Web3 centric program that harnesses the power of decentralized business models and technologies in an effort to help individuals gain complete control of their private healthcare info especially in regard to owing, sharing and monetizing it.

The session will be organized by the DecentraTech Collective and will have a number of startups giving detailed presentations about the technology. This will be followed by a Q&A session with each of the presenters.

Helium House ATX will commence on June 11 and will last the entire day. Its purpose is to bring together members of the fledgling Helium project while discussing the rapid evolution of The Peoples Network. In its simplest sense, The Peoples Network can be viewed as a one-of-a-kind P2P wireless mesh that affords its users a highly private, affordable way of powering the Internet of Things (IoT) devices primarily to send/receive data using traditional internet services.

The folks behind the massively popular subreddit WallStreetBets will be hosting an action-packed gathering of like-minded crypto enthusiasts on June 9. The event will feature table games like Blackjack and Roulette while also giving attendees a chance to participate in activities that have attractive prizes up for grabs.

Read the original post:
Here Are The Events You Can't Miss at Consensus 2022 Week | Bitcoinist.com - Bitcoinist

Blockchain is the technology that started it all its what makes millions of transactions sent through peer-to-peer cryptocurrency networks every year. And now, its making its way into one of the most important parts of everyday life communication. But what makes blockchain so powerful, and what exactly does it have to do with the way in which we talk to others?

Cryptocurrency networks decide on the true state of their blockchains using consensus mechanisms, processes that verify the legitimacy of data stored within blocks and decide where along a particular blockchain those blocks belong. If nodes within a cryptocurrency network disagree on a blockchains true state, then protocols specific to each network automatically settle the dispute and determine the correct blockchain. Because this is done automatically, it is very difficult for an attacker to commit fraudulent transactions.

Consensus mechanisms contribute to another attractive feature of blockchains, that being their immutability. Data stored within blockchains cannot be retroactively changed or reversed without majority consensus. 51% or more of all nodes within a cryptocurrency network must agree to change the state of a blockchain. As a cryptocurrency grows, it becomes harder and harder for a single entity to control 51% of the network. Because of this, large cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin ensure the integrity of transactions. In turn, this enables individuals and businesses to trust that their funds are safe.

TokLok, a rising messaging app, is using similar technology to revolutionize online communication. TokLok uses a decentralized and encrypted peer-to-peer network to send fully secure communications directly between phones, guaranteeing truly private correspondence.

When messages are sent from one phone to another, they are first wrapped in two layers of encryption. Then, they travel throughout the network to their intended destination. To ensure that they cannot be intercepted, only devices equipped with the correct secret codes can decrypt and read them. The combination of encryption and secret codes makes it impossible for anyone who attempts to insert themselves between senders and receivers to sniff or alter the contents of their messages. This enables users to trust that their conversations are unfiltered, uncensored, and secure.

While there are several encrypted messaging apps available, no other app goes to such lengths to protect user data. Because TokLok sends messages directly between phones, those messages never touch a third-party data provider, completely skipping cellular networks and internet service providers. This is important because messages that through third-party networks are vulnerable on the way to their destination. Without knowing what happens between a messages start and end point, its impossible to determine whether they are being spied upon or altered.

This concern is not unfounded. The famous PRISM documents, leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013, revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States had back-door access to some of the largest internet platforms. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Apple were all named either voluntarily or by force, these companies enabled the United States government to spy on anyone using their services. Between government surveillance and hackers, no data sent through a third party is safe.

Even without anything to hide, data privacy is important. Data sent through third-party services can be stored indefinitely and used in a plethora of nefarious ways. Personal data can be used to profile individuals in order to influence their beliefs, track their movements, impersonate them, steal their identity, and more.

Though TokLok is already developed, maintaining the most secure messenger is no small task. Cyber security threats evolve every single day. As such, TokLok has decided to go public via an ICO, or Initial Coin Offering. Sold TOL tokens will be distributed through the Ethereum blockchain, and the funds generated from these sales will be put towards continuous updates and the development of new features.

The first round of TokLoks ICO has already begun. In total, there will be three rounds, each round offering the token for a higher price than the last. Because TokLok has the competitive advantage of being the only messaging app that provides full security, investors from across the cryptocurrency space are jumping in.

Continue reading here:
How Will Blockchain Revolutionize Communication - NewsBTC

In June 2021, ProPublica published confidential IRS tax information about wealthy Americans provided by a still-unidentified source. While we don't yet know who dumped the data, we do know that this is far from the first time that the tax agency, which forces people to reveal sensitive details about their finances, has proven to be an unreliable custodian of that information, and that's putting it nicely. Too often, federal tax collectors misuse official records for fun, profit, and political advantage.

"Today, ProPublica is launching the first in a series of stories based on the private tax data of some of our nation's richest citizens," ProPublica's Stephen Engelberg and Richard Tofel wrote on June 8, 2021. "Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing soquite selectively and carefullybecause we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden."

Included in the treasure trove of tax data were details about the tax bills of people including Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett. Drawn from IRS records, the information was provided through "secure systems that allow whistleblowers to transmit information to us without revealing their identity." The data revealed that many wealthy Americans successfully minimize their tax burdens, which might have been the source's purpose, though that's anybody's guess. People have many motivations for releasing information and ProPublica admits it doesn't know the source's intentions.

In fact, the IRS leaks like a sieve on a regular basis for all sorts of reasons.

"[T]he IRS completed 1,694 investigations into the willful unauthorized access of tax data by employeesand 27% were found to be violations," the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported last month.

"[Michael Kasper] was almost certainly one of the more than 330,000 Americans who fell victim to an audacious hack of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which was disclosed earlier this year," Quartz noted in 2015 of a man who discovered that somebody else collected his tax refund.

"Tea Party, anti-abortion and other conservative groups told Congress on Tuesday that the Internal Revenue Service held up their applications for tax exemptions, harassed them with questions and leaked their donor lists to political opponents," USA Today reported in 2013.

Outsiders penetrate inadequate security for gain while IRS employees often access and disclose financial information to satisfy personal curiosity, to make money, and to advance political causes. Sometimes those political causes are their own, and other times they're part of the agenda of whoever holds power in the federal government.

"The history of the I.R.S is riddled with repeated instances of agents acting out of self-interest or pursuing their own ideological agenda, as well as examples of Presidents, White House staff and Cabinet officials pressuring the tax agency to take political actions," The New York Times pointed out in 1989.

That abuse began early in the accumulation of the tax agency's powers.

"My father," Elliott Roosevelt, son of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, once commented, "may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution."

FDR's administration may have been the first to weaponize the tax-collection agency, but it wasn't the last. John F. Kennedy established an "Ideological Organizations Audit Project" within the IRS to target his conservative political critics. Richard Nixon infamously used the tax agency as a political hit man against prominent Democrats. That the misuse of tax information continued is obvious from the Times story on the matter during the administration of Bush Sr. as well as from the scandal over the Obama-era mistreatment of Tea Party groups and, more recently, the ProPublica leak.

So, the use of tax data by ProPublica and its source to make a policy point isn't exactly groundbreaking. Some of the agents and politicians who weaponized the IRS in the past intended to make the world a better place by their lights, or at least to hurt only people and organizations they were convinced were bad. And leaks from government agencies often do achieve beneficial ends. Where would we be without Daniel Ellsberg's copies of the Pentagon Papers, Mark Felt's role as "Deep Throat" in the Watergate scandal, or Edward Snowden's revelations of government surveillance?

But leaks from the IRS aren't war plans, misuses of power, or politicians' schemes; they're sensitive, private financial information that we're forced to surrender to government agents. We have no choice but to fill out our tax forms even though we know that the federal employees receiving our information have a track record of abusing that data for their own ends and to our detriment.

And political goals aren't objectively good justifications for invading people's financial privacy. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation's Andrew Moylan and Andrew Wilford warned in Reason that ProPublica's use of the data was "deceptive and sure to lead to ill-advised policy making." Under the most charitable interpretation, that indicates a tendentious misuse of sensitive private information.

Not that the tax authorities necessarily care. History suggests that IRS leaks carry minimal consequences for the agency.

"The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) previously issued an audit report in September 2006 on the IRS's Office of Privacy and found that the IRS was not complying with legislative privacy requirements," TIGTA reported in 2013. "Despite its commitment toward privacy and improvements from our prior review, the IRS continues to face challenges in meeting legislative privacy requirements."

And here we are in 2022 with, apparently, still a good deal of room for improvement after decades of abuses of privacy by tax collectors and wrist-slaps by their watchdogs. Almost a year after the initial ProPublica story, and after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen promised "to get to the bottom of this criminal activity," the federal government still claims to have no idea who leaked the data. "There have been no arrests nor any official hints about how the wall of secrecy around tax records was broken; it is unknown whether the IRS has found or closed any security gaps," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Many of us complain about the bite the government takes out of our paychecks. Even more pernicious, though, is that the information tax collectors force us to surrender is likely to be turned against us by politicians, government agents, and activists who see the details of our finances as tools with which to achieve their goals. The IRS isn't just a powerful federal agency, it's a weapon against the public.

See the original post:
One Year Later, No One Has Been Punished for the IRS Leak of Billionaires' Tax Data - Reason

Facing an increasing backlash against the Biden administrations Disinformation Governing Board (DGB), Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas promised it would not monitor Americans. It was not enough. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was forced to put the DGB on pause, and its director, Nina Jankowicz, resigned under public pressure.

Now DHS says it is reviewing the board while continuing its critical workto address disinformation.

No matter what happens with the board, it is hard to take Mayorkass promise not to monitor Americans seriously. Several recent cases of the federal government spying on Americans as well as DHSs own actions were certain to make people skeptical.

For example, in February of this year, DHS issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin, a memo prioritizing false or misleading narratives as a top domestic security threat. The bulletin states that there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.

This bulletin clearly referenced Americans inside our borders. Also, unlike with the DGB, DHS made no promise to not monitor Americans speech. (My organization, the Center to Advance Security in America, submitted several Freedom of Information Act requests for records regarding the NTAS bulletin and the DGB.)

Dont forget Carter Page, either. Page was an advisor to the Donald Trump 2016 campaign. In 2016-17 the government investigated him on suspicion of being an intermediary between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. A later inspector generals report identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the application for a warrant to surveil Page. A Department of Justice attorney was convicted of falsifying a document that led to a Page warrant.

Also recall the James Clapper spying scandal. Clapper, the director of national intelligence under President Obama, responded, No, sir and not wittingly, when asked at a Senate hearing if the National Security Agency was collecting any type of data at all on millions of Americans without a specific warrant. About three months after making that claim, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed Clappers answer was untruthful, as the NSA was in fact collecting in bulk domestic call records, along with various internet communications.

There is also the CIA spying scandal. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who are privy to classified information, have warned about the existence of asecret bulk collection program that the CIA has operatedoutside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection, and without oversight by the courts or Congress.

The secret program appears related to bulk data swept up by the CIA in terrorism operations, including information on Americans, according to aheavily blacked-out reportfrom a CIA oversight board that was declassified at the urging of the two senators.

Then there is Biden Attorney General Merrick Garlands infamous school board memo. The memo directed the FBI to involve itself in local school board meetings under the auspices of anti-terrorism statutes due to supposed threats and violence directed against board members.

However, concerns that the FBI and DOJ were actually targeting the speech of parents were heightened, when, on October 14, 2021,another memo, released by the U.S. attorney in Montana, directed law enforcement to contact the FBI if a parent calls a member of a school board simply with intent to annoy. He claimed that may serve as a basis for a prosecution under federal law.

Garland and the Biden Department of Justice and FBI were forced to disavow the latter memo, since it appeared to directly target simple and non-threatening speech. During testimony, Garland assured Congress the memo would not be used to target parents for policy disagreements. Yet information recently obtained from FBI whistleblowers indicates the FBI had targeted and labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag, based on their associations and speech, including statements opposing mask and vaccine mandates.

As if to pour fuel on this fire, the woman DHS chose to lead the DGB was proven to be a proud and vocal proponent of censorship. Jankowicz has a history of attaching the disinformation label to speech she doesnt like, regardless of its veracity.

With a record like this, would you trust Mayorkass promise that the DGB wont monitor the speech of the American people? Neither would I.

Adam Turner is the director of the Center to Advance Security in America.

Originally posted here:
Whatever Happens To The 'Disinformation' Board, The Feds Are Spying - The Federalist

Support us and go ad-free

Home secretary Priti Patel will decide before the end of May whether to recommendJulian Assanges extradition to the US. The WikiLeaks founder is accused of 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

Patels recommendation will have implications for journalists everywhere, not just in the UK or US. But her recommendation is not necessarily the end of the matter. Because Assanges lawyers can still apply to appeal earlier court rulings.

On 14 March, defence lawyers released a statement following a Supreme Court decision. The statement explained that they have an opportunity to put arguments against extradition to Patel.

Crucially, it added:

No appeal to the High Court has yet been filed by him [Assange] in respect of the other important issues he raised previously in Westminster Magistrates Court. That separate process of appeal has, of course, yet to be initiated.

Former UK ambassador Craig Murray argued such appeals would likely consider:

The Canary has already published several legal arguments as to why the prosecutions case against Assange is flawed. Some of them are as follows:

Read on...

The Canary has also reported on how a star prosecution witness a convicted felon and paedophile fabricated evidence in exchange for a deal with the FBI. Under English law, where a law enforcement agency is shown to have directly fabricated or colluded in the falsification of evidence, this provides grounds for dismissal of a prosecution case or of convictions. A famous example of this was the Guildford Four case.

And then there are the revelations that the CIA plotted the potential kidnap, rendition, and murder of Assange.

The Assange case should also be seen in the context of other cases that are of legal relevance.

Katharine Gun worked as a translator for GCHQ. In 2003, she leaked a copy of a classified memo from the NSA. The memo requested that GCHQ monitor the communications of certain UN delegates. This was to pressurise them to support the US and UK in their intended invasion of Iraq. Gun later argued that the US and UK were attempting to either blackmail, bribe or threaten those delegates and their countries.

The leaked memo ended up with the Observer, which ran a front page story on it. Subsequently, Gun owned up to the leak and some months later was charged under the Official Secrets Act.

When Special Branch asked Gun why she leaked the memo, given that she worked for the British government, she poignantly replied:

No, I work for the British people. I do not gather intelligence so the government can lie to the British people.

In court, Guns lawyer threatened to disclose material that could question the legal basis of the war. At that point, UK authorities announced that they wont proceed with the prosecution. Labour cabinet minister Clare Short suspected the prosecution was dropped because they do not want the light shone on the attorney generals advice [that the war was legal].

As with Gun, the Assange case boils down to the question of whose interests a journalist should serve that of the state or of the public? Assanges lawyers compared him to Gun during the extradition hearings.

(Official Secrets, starring Keira Knightly, is a film version of what happened to Gun.)

Renowned whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg profoundly admired what Gun did. As reported in The Canary, Ellsberg also offered his unequivocal support to Assange.

In 1971, Ellsberg was responsible for leaking the History of US Decision-making in Vietnam 1945-68to the New York Times and Washington Post. The 7,000-page document became known as the Pentagon Papers. And it provided an insight into top-secret US decision-making during the Vietnam War.

As with Assange, Ellsberg was charged with violations under the Espionage Act. Crucially, however, the whistleblowers prosecution was dropped. This was after it became known that president Richard Nixon had organised a break-in of Ellsbergs psychiatrists office and the FBI had organised wiretapping.

In Assanges case, there was also a breach of confidentiality. Surveillance company UC Global secretly filmed Assange with his lawyers inside the Ecuadorian embassy. The company then allegedly passed the footage on to contacts with links to US intelligence.

In March, a UK court ruled that investigative journalist and former Labour MP Chris Mullin was right in refusing to disclose names of those who cooperated in his investigation into the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. Back in 2019, The Canary had reported that Special Branch knew the real bombers identities as far back as 1975.

In Assanges case, the prosecution argued that his attempt to protect a source Chelsea Manning equated to collusion. In contrast, the UK courts ruled that Mullin had every right to protect his sources. Moreover, Mullin emphasised that this forms the basis of a free press.

A number of articles have also exposed a potential conflict of interest by Emma Arbuthnot, who presided as judge in the earlier stages of the extradition hearings:

All these revelations suggest that what weve been witnessing from the very beginning is little more than a show trial.

Any one of the above concerns raised should, in theory, be enough to have the US extradition request dismissed. But first, any appeal requires High Court approval. And if that approval is given, there will be a glimmer of hope for Assange.

Ultimately, the core defence for Assange can boil down to two fundamental arguments. These are: freedom of speech, and the right to publish information of wrong-doings in the public interest.

Featured image via Wikimedia / Cancillera del Ecuador cropped 770403 pixels

Read the original here:
There's still hope for Julian Assange in his battle to avoid US trial - The Canary

If youre interested in cryptocurrency, you may have come across the privacy-protecting digital currency called Zcash. They launched this cryptocurrency to solve privacy problems inherent in other cryptocurrencies. It also focuses on zero-knowledge-proof concepts to increase its privacy. The electric coin company has since changed its name to Electric Coin, separate from Zcash. The Vice President of Marketing and Business Development, Josh Swihart, explained the history of the digital currency and why privacy matters.

Edward Snowden, who formerly worked for the NSA, has publicly spoken about privacy coins. In September 2017, he called Zcash the most interesting alternative to bitcoin. In February 2019, Snowden clarified that he was not compensated for promoting Zcash. He also spoke at an event in Paris in April in which he discussed the privacy issues associated with digital currency. Snowden blamed the privacy problems hed discovered on computer networks set up in the 1970s.

As the war in Ukraine escalates, money seems to be pouring into privacy coins. A European Parliament vote could shut down unregulated exchanges and require identity verification for all small transactions. It has given privacy coins an extra boost, as Bitcoin and Zcash have gained more than six percent value since February 24. Zcashs main rival, monero, has a market cap of $4 billion. CoinMarketCaps privacy coins comprise $11.3 billion of the digital currency market.

In addition to its privacy features, Zcash also boasts a speedy and anonymous blockchain. Unlike other cryptocurrencies, Zcash is anonymous and uses zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) to hide information from public view. Unlike Bitcoin, users do not have to worry about revealing their real names or addresses to other users. The transaction confirmation time is 75 seconds instead of ten minutes with Bitcoin.

The underlying cryptographic technology behind Zcash uses custom zero-knowledge-proof construction, or zk-SNARKs, to protect user privacy and prevent others from cheating or stealing. The protocol is open-source, meaning that the creators of Zcash cannot control it. It means that Zcash is truly decentralized. Similar to Bitcoin, Monero, and PivX, Zcashs founders hope to further the cryptography of Bitcoin.

Zcashs encryption technique has two advantages: it does not kill the data that is exchanged for currency. It scrambles it instead and uses zk-SNARKs to add extra client security. There are two types of addresses in Zcash: z-addresses and t-addresses. Zcash protects user privacy by hiding the identity of the sender and recipient and only shows the number of funds that were sent or received.

Zerocoin was a project from the John Hopkins University, and it was initially aimed to address the privacy issue associated with Bitcoin. Researchers eventually improved it. The project was finally launched as a blockchain in 2016.

Zcash is an excellent privacy-protecting digital currency, with transactions shielded from public view. The data is uploaded to the public blockchain, but the sender and receiver remain private. Zero-knowledge proofs are the basis for transaction privacy and can be shared for compliance and audit purposes. The price of Zcash is rising, but it is still an excellent time to consider purchasing Zcash.

The t-addresses and z-addresses are compatible with each other. Just make sure you understand the privacy implications of each address before deciding which one to use. Most wallets support both. Some exchanges are upgrading to support z-addresses. If youre considering using this digital currency, check out its privacy and security features.

The price of Zcash has fluctuated a lot, but the price of ZEC is still above the market average. While a bullish market would guarantee continued growth, sell-offs would be bad for a fragile cryptocurrency market. As a result, the price of ZEC could dip below $200 in the coming months. It may even fall below $200 before 2022. If it continues to rise, it could reach $270 before its target date.

The technology behind Zcash is not perfect. Use bitcoin-loophole.live to look at Zcash value. While a few companies have tried to integrate it into Ethereum, there are a few more essential things. In the future, ZEC could become the global installment framework. Its privacy features make it more valuable to investors. As a result, some investors may allocate part of their portfolios to privacy-focused cryptocurrencies. These types of cryptocurrencies are expected to grow in popularity.

See the rest here:
Zcash (ZEC) Privacy Protecting Digital Currency And Its Price - London Post