Bitcointhe worlds largest and most popular cryptocurrency by market captoday dropped by roughly 5 percent within just a few hours. It is currently trading at around $8,100 per coin.
Bitcoin opened the day trading for roughly $8,520 but has since dropped in price by as much as $400. The price of Bitcoin hasnt been this low since late September, when Bakktthe Bitcoin futures exchange backed by the owners of the New York Stock Exchangedebuted to a slow start.
At the time, Bitcoin was trading for a solid $9,500, though Bakkts dismal introduction to the market led the cryptocurrency to fall by more than $1,400 just days later.
The price of Bitcoin recuperated somewhat in late October following positive comments about blockchain from Chinas president, Xi Jinping. China's president stated that he believed blockchain could potentially revitalize his countrys economy and infrastructure, and that he would be pushing blockchain innovation in the coming months.
In the weeks since, Bakkt has seen a boost in its business, trading more than $18 million in bitcoin futures contracts during the final week of October. Bitcoin then seemingly recovered, spiking to around the $10,000 per coin mark briefly before falling back into the $9,000 range.
Be the first to get Decrypt Members. A new type of account built on blockchain.
And while the price has, of course, continued to bounce up and down within the last few weeks, today marks the most volatility that Bitcoin has experienced in some time. And the rest of the market is feeling it too.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH), EOS (EOS) and Litecoin are all currently down by roughly six to eight percent, according to data from Messari.
Bruce Fenton is definitely a distinct personality in the Bitcoin space. After working as a stock market broker for about two decades, he chose to walk away from his Wall Street career and take a leap of faith with Bitcoin.
Its been a wild ride, I wouldnt trade it for the world. In my opinion, Bitcoin is the most powerful and important open-source project out there, said Fenton, an enthusiastic superhero fan.
As he spoke, he sat next to a large Batman action figure that points to the duality of his own work. Much like Bruce Wayne, Fenton lives a double life. He works as the director of his own companies, Atlantic Financial and Chainstone Labs, during the day. However, its at night that he puts on his mask to defend sound money, freedom of transactions and privacy.
This ardent advocacy may stem from Fentons origins with the original cryptocurrency. When he first entered the Bitcoin space, the same kind of financial incentives that exist today were not apparent.
I worked with some of the wealthiest organizations in the world, and when I got into Bitcoin I went from a very high income to basically no income, he explained. And it wasnt like now, with lots of startups. Coinbase and BitPay were some of the early ones which appeared several months after I started.
According to Fenton, it was the intellectual brilliance of the early Bitcoin community that first drew him into the space. To him, the journey has been truly exciting and transformational.
I think what attracted me at first was the electric excitement of going to these Bitcoin events, he said. The first couple of events that I attended were life-changing because I found this weird eclectic mix of strange people: hackers, anarchists and real geniuses. I could quickly tell that they knew their stuff and they were excited about it, and that got me excited about it too.
Fentons biggest adjustment has been that of switching from a hierarchical and authority-driven background to a whole new world which eliminates statuses and tries to build a fairer system.
I came from a world where everything was about authority, so I kept trying to find out whos the leader, he recalled. Then I realized that Bitcoin belongs to everybody and that was a big mind shift in my previous job I was dealing with kings, cabinet ministers and billionaires all the time.
Experience has taught Fenton that attempts to centralize power and influence in Bitcoin are anathema to its very DNA and will end up as failures. Nonetheless, he spoke fondly of the Bitcoin Foundation, a nonprofit Bitcoin advocacy group that he led from 2015 to 2016.
The Foundation is an interesting animal because it evolved a lot over time, Fenton said. In the early days, people were trying to make it an official organization thats in charge. We didnt have people like Andreas Antonopoulos to do public speaking and raise awareness, the media was confused and looking for spokespeople, so the Foundation was convenient at the time.
Highlighting just how misunderstood Bitcoin was during the Foundations earlier days, Fenton recalled some humorous moments from his time there.
The Foundation got a lot of crazy letters in the early days: they got a Cease and Desist from the State of California which said stop all bitcoins just because they didnt know better and thought the protocol can be controlled by this centralized entity, he said. People would call the Foundation and say someone hacked me, I want my coins back. But now you no longer make these mistakes because even the media knows that you have no centralized power over the protocol.
But despite his history of advocacy work, Fenton explained that hes not interested in representing Bitcoin in a public debate with regulators or legislators. However, he did take a moment to step into the shoes of a public speaker who advocates for the freedom enabled by Bitcoin, making a short and concise argument for free code and exchange of ideas.
If I were to testify in Congress about Bitcoin, I would define it as an idea which is expressed in code, Fenton explained. People have the right to write down ideas, express them in code, give them away and run them on a computer. Nobody has any authority to mess with this.
But for all of his own strong views, Fenton did point out that he enjoys listening to different perspectives and tries to remain friendly despite great differences in opinions.
In my nature, I try to make more friends than enemies, he said. This extends to the Bitcoin space and I hope is something for which Im known.
That being said, Fenton considers himself a Bitcoin maximalist. Its a label regularly applied to him by altcoiners, though other Bitcoin maximalists often dismiss him as an altcoiner. Nonetheless, Fenton believes that maximalists are the reason why Bitcoin is so successful and keeps on getting more robust at the protocol level and in price.
Maximalists might not be that diplomatic, but theyre also protecting my bitcoins because I know theyll never compromise, he said. I know that Im not going to lose sleep at night worrying about the price or about the code being changed.
The sixth Satoshi Roundtable event, an annual gathering established by Fenton, is set to take place between February 7 and February 10, 2020. According to its website, 175 leading Bitcoin industry members will be attending. However, the events selectivity and focus on privacy are controversial within the community.
One misconception is that its closed, Fenton explained. Its just limited in space, due to the reality of logistics. We only have a couple hundred seats. The main purpose is to not do something like Consensus, which is noisy and busy.
Fenton added that community members who want to participate in the Satoshi Roundtable for the first time can simply reach out and try to get a seat, particularly those whove been there before and havent pitched some kind of scam.
As a way of proving the open and inclusive nature of the gathering, Fenton pointed to one unlikely guest who nonetheless garners a lot of enthusiasm in the Bitcoin space.
We never kicked anybody out to make room for someone else, but we always tried to make room for the people who can add the most to the conversation, he said. William Shatner is coming this year. He doesnt have some huge street cred when it comes to Bitcoin code, but he has an interesting life and hes a celebrity.
In regards to the secretive nature of the gathering and the fact that the outside world doesnt find out much about whats being discussed, Fenton nodded to the fundamental need for privacy.
We try to respect the privacy of participants, which sometimes gets misinterpreted as secrecy, he said.
Between 2015 and 2017, Fenton took various stances regarding the scalability of Bitcoin. But regardless of his preferences and biases, he kept an open mind and an open door for debate.
Further Reading: The Long Road to SegWit
I think I was successful in not being too strong in taking a stance, he said. I was definitely open minded to the point of annoying people. At the time, I was arguing for both sides of the issue. In hindsight, I mostly argued on the corporate NYA/SegWit2X side.
Interestingly, despite spending some time arguing in favor of the block size increase via SegWit2X, Fenton did not sign the New York Agreement (NYA) and merely participated in the discussions.
I didnt support the NYA, but I did argue for it because I was still learning for myself. I think that one of my strengths is to be a debater type of person. So I think that I have a strength in taking peoples opinions and putting them in a way that makes me argue a case for somebody else, he added.
In his transition from arguing for bigger blocks to understanding why Bitcoin shouldnt be changed, Fenton has received a lot of support from other community members who understood that security is a greater priority than cheap transactions. Correspondingly, he went on to thank some of the industry leaders who helped him change his mind.
Adam Back is probably the best example, as he was kind enough to spend a lot of time with me and people like me, he recalled. I remember one time we spoke on the phone for three and a half hours. All the time he tried to explain to me and convince me whats different about open source and why this works. Eric Lombrozo, Nick Szabo and Jameson Lopp really informed my opinion too Thank God I never signed that New York Agreement!
According to Fentons recollection of the early days, many people came into Bitcoin and had misconceptions about free and fast transactions.
It was all about merchants and convincing them to accept Bitcoin, he said. And then Roger Ver gave a speech in which he said, If this continues, then were going to pay 30 cents for a fee, and some people listening were appalled.
Fenton is also convinced that both sides of the debate were acting in good faith and wanted what they genuinely thought was best for Bitcoin. In the end, he concluded that the Bitcoin maximalist understanding is the point of view which he also favors. However, he maintains a diplomatic stance in relation to big blockers.
Now I agree with the Bitcoin maximalists that security is most important and the base layer shouldnt be changed, but I respect the people on the other side too, he said.
Fenton believes that the existence of Bitcoin Cash as a divisive project which onboards big block advocates is a net positive, but he dislikes the way in which the fork tries to call itself Bitcoin. He doesnt regard chain forks as evil creations that should not exist, but natural consequences of the open-source environment that can be educational.
"Forks are great because thats the nature of open source, he said. And I do believe that all of these projects help Bitcoin because we learn what doesnt work and there will always be a minority group that just wants to do something different. The nature of the software license is that anybody can do anything with it, and they can try to run their own code. If its something that becomes successful and has market value over time, then that will be good. Otherwise, its just a learning experience.
In regards to Bitcoin privacy, Fenton believes that its very important. However, hes convinced that many of the technical discussions regarding the right implementation of this privacy should be left to the engineers.
From an overall priority standpoint, I think that privacy should be way up there, he said. Security must always be first, but privacy should be second or third.
Philosophically speaking, Fenton takes his views about privacy from his reading of cypherpunk literature, calling A Cypherpunks Manifesto the origin and ethos of what Bitcoin is.
But even though he appreciates the cypherpunk values, Fenton is against a hard fork that might force additional privacy measures and appears to be open to second layers that fulfill privacy requirements more easily.
"I believe in a base layer that cant be changed and is as close to immutability as can be, and also enables people to build privacy on top of it, he clarified.
Fenton also believes that privacy should exist by default for all users, and it shouldnt just be an optional feature which reduces the anonymity set of everybody involved and doesnt really solve problems. In order to make his case for private data protection, he told a short story about his early days in stock brokerage.
When I became a stock broker in 1992, I could open an account over the phone just by getting a name and an address, he explained. It wasnt until later that they added social security number and ID requirements. The government just slammed its fist down to add extra verification, and now roughly 20 years later, its like the government has some birthright to do complete KYC/AML. The economy worked just well for decades before this, most of the stuff has no economic value and is put in place for extra control.
He also argued that mandatory KYC/AML requirements havent really brought the expected results and crime still exists in spite of them.
Imagine if you didnt have all these arbitrary rules for money transmitting in bitcoin, he said. The industry would be a lot bigger, it would be easier for people to move money around.
All told, Fentons history, opinions and current involvement in Bitcoin make him one of the most captivating figures in the space. As the technology grows, theres little doubt that his own story will follow along with it.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Wolves could be forced to pull a new bitcoin lottery sponsorship deal amid growing concern about their new partner's business background.
The Premier League club announced Crypto Millions Lotto as their official online lottery partner on Wednesday.
The organisation pledges to allow registered users to compete for a 23million jackpot prize and receive referral fees in bitcoin.
Headlines on the lottery's homepage boast of their link-up with Wolves , who are in the Europa League.
But concerns are growing at Molineux after it emerged the CEO Sulim Malook was behind a failed company called Fat Cat Gaming.
It could prompt a review of Malook's operating practises as he doesn't have a UK gambling licence.
Crypto Millions Lotto's parent company is Ofertas365 , based out of Curacao off the coast of Venezuela , which also launched 'AfroMillionsLotto' in Nigeria in 2017.
Its website no longer works with visitors given a chance to buy its domain name.
But Malook claims he has expanded and migrated the business to Crypto Millions Lotto which also draws on the German National Lottery numbers.
Yet scrutiny of Crypto Millions Lotto's terms and conditions state pay-outs for large winnings depend on their insurance partner Lloyds paying up and could be suspended for up to two years, pending negotiations. Molineux officials have since gone back to the outside agency, who recommended Malook's latest company.
A previous business Fat Cat Gaming was launched in 2015 by crowd-funding platform fundedbyme with an investment of 8,500 in return for a 1% stake.
It promised users a free-to-play mobile game, called Lucky 6 but all hyper-links to its sites have been disabled.
Angry bloggers claim they were encouraged to promote the game in India in exchange for shares which were either worth little or tough to cash in.
Fundedbyme were contacted by MirrorSport and claimed not to have been in contact with Malook for many years.
Mirror Sport phoned Mr Malook for comment and he said: I have done a contract with Wolves and signed it on behalf of our company (Ofertas365).
I have paid them. A lot of people are very happy with it and I am happy with it.
We don't have a UK gambling licence but we aren't doing business in the UK.
Wolves earlier announced the deal with Steve Morton, head of commercial at Wolves, stating: Were delighted to partner with Crypto Millions Lotto, an ambitious company that is keen to increase its exposure with the help of Wolves global reach across various platforms.
Were also excited to develop our relationship, which will also see the Wolves brand reach new audiences in Eastern Europe and South America.
Swedens decision to drop an investigation into a rape allegation against Julian Assange has both illuminated the situation of the WikiLeaks founder and made it more pressing. He must be defended against extradition to the United States in a case that digs at the foundations of freedom and democracy in both Britain and the US, and could see him sentenced to a total of 175 years.
Mr Assange is in Belmarsh prison, where he served a 50-week sentence for skipping bail. He had entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid arrest when Sweden asked Britain to extradite him for questioning. Though he denies any wrongdoing, that investigation was appropriate. Prosecuting authorities have said the complainants evidence was credible and reliable, but that the passage of time Mr Assange entered the embassy in 2012 meant that witnesses memories had faded.
The path has now been cleared for the US charges against him. They are entirely different. They relate to the secret military and diplomatic files provided by Chelsea Manning, which exposed appalling abuses by the US, and corrupt and brutal behaviour by other governments. These were covered by the Guardian, the New York Times and others, providing the public with important and necessary information. The Guardian, like others, strongly opposed Mr Assanges subsequent decision to publish unredacted documents in bulk. But the materials importance remains indisputable.
The Obama administration decided against pursuing Mr Assange under the Espionage Act, realising the threat to first amendment rights. Donald Trump enthused about his organisation on the 2016 campaign trail: I love WikiLeaks, he announced, after it published Democratic party emails stolen by Russian state hackers. But his administration has chosen to prosecute Mr Assange, and to do so explicitly on charges of publishing classified information through WikiLeaks.
Press freedom advocates in the US have rightly described this decision as terrifying and a dire threat to reporters, particularly given Mr Trumps relentless assaults upon the media. But Sajid Javid, then home secretary, signed the extradition order and the matter is with the courts. The full proceedings will begin in February.
The case against extradition is strengthened by the nature of the US penal system particularly given concerns about Mr Assanges health and the shameful treatment of Ms Manning. The army whistleblower was held in solitary confinement for years. Though her sentence was commuted by Barack Obama, she has been jailed again, for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury assumed to relate to Mr Assanges case.
This is not a question of how wise Mr Assange is, still less how likable. It is not about his character, nor his judgment. It is a matter of press freedom, and the publics right to know. It is unclear whether it would be safe to extradite Mr Assange to the US. It is certain that it would not be right.
On Nov. 5, Washington voters passed Initiative 976, which may lower car licenses to $30.
On Nov. 6, King County Executive Dow Constantine asked King Countys prosecuting attorney ... to prepare a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of I-976. King County will charge the attorneys fees to taxpayers.
King County effectively spat in the faces of We the People.
The King County connivers the KCC may be using license fees to support illegal aliens in sanctuary Seattle. If Washington residents commit illegalities, Washington authorities fine and/or jail them. But when the perps are illegal aliens, the KCC coddles them.
Also last week, President Donald Trump caved to the National Security Agency and agreed to make NSA spying and surveillance permanently legal hand me a towel, will ya, senator violating the Fourth Amendments ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
The entire establishment not just Hillary Clinton despises us deplorables.
Tymothy Park (Oct. 11) wants a rewrite of the Second Amendment and twice references ... the right to keep and bear arms ... both times omitting the words of the people.
The right recognized in this amendment is the right of each individual, just as the rights listed in the First and Fourth amendments are also identified with the words the right of the people.
The arms cited were understood to be more than tools for hunting, sport or personal defense. Please consider these words from Andrew Jackson in his first Inaugural Address in 1829: ... but a million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe.
At the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, more than half the cannons aimed at the British were privately owned; well in keeping with the original intent of the founders and well remembered by President Jackson.
The militia meant the ordinary armed citizens willing to stand with their neighbors in defense of liberty.
The founders did not want a select militia, as a standing army was then called, and only grudgingly authorized creation of a navy because the specialized needs of coastal defense required it. We are more than allowed to keep and bear arms. The founders considered it our duty as citizens.
Break free from corruption
Where are the Jeff Smiths of our Congress? In a time such as these, we desperately need those individuals who are naive yet fully committed to liberty to stand up to those who have commandeered our nation for their own personal wealth and power.
Our Founding Fathers guided our nation in its infancy to break free from the tyranny that shackled it. Their foresight allowed this nation to endure many trials in its history. Once again we are in a significant challenge to unite together and free ourselves from the corruption that fosters divisiveness in order to maintain its designated status quo.
Political agendas of some have battered our Constitution during the decades. Currently, there is a belief among business and political interests that they should rule over our nation and control its destiny.
To them and others who follow, I say: Our nation is not for sale.
We are afforded the ability to choose which direction our nation pursues due to the sacrifices of so many who militarily defended this country and those who defended the social freedoms of our citizens.
From that, we can choose using our voting rights, regardless of race or gender, that were labored for by many.
We need to comprehend fully the words inscribed in the Lincoln Memorial from the Gettysburg Address: That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
Roger Stones conviction Friday on charges of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering has drawn widespread speculation about whether President Donald Trump will pardon his longtime adviser. Trump, after all, publicly cheered Stones promise not to testify against the president in special counsel Robert Muellers Russia investigation. And Stone himself, just before his conviction, reportedly sought presidential intervention through a note read on the air by far-right commentator Alex Jones. I appeal to the president to pardon me because to do so would be an action that would show these corrupt courts that theyre not going to get away with persecuting people for their free speech or for the crime of getting the president elected, Stone said, according to Jones.
This appeal is significant because Stone is asking the president to intervene in a case in which Trump is personally implicated. Stone was found guilty of lying to House investigators about contacts with Trump campaign officials in which he provided updates on WikiLeaks plans for releasing emails stolen from Democrats by Russian hackers. Stones trial included testimony suggesting that the self-described dirty trickster had personally briefed Trump on WikiLeaks plans. This means that Trump likely lied to Mueller when he claimed he did not recall discussing WikiLeaks with Stone.
Strikingly, this is apparently not the first time Stone has tried to convince Trump to use his pardon powers to intercede in the criminal probes surrounding WikiLeaks. After Trump was elected president in 2016, Stone told associates he was working to convince the president to pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who at the time faced potential prosecution by the Justice Department in connection with his organizations publication of classified US government documents in 2010. Randy Credicoa comedian and political activist formerly friendly with Stonetestified at Stones trial that in 2016, Stone contacted Margaret Ratner Kunstler, a lawyer who worked with WikiLeaks. According to Credico, Stone told Kunstler that he planned to urge Trump to preemptively pardon Assange.
Mother Jones first reported last year that Stone, in text messages to Credico, had claimed he was attempting to secure a pardon for Assange. I am working with others to get JA a blanket pardon, Stone wrote in one January 6, 2018, message. Its very real and very possible. Dont fuck it up. Stone sent that message, which was placed in evidence by prosecutors during his trial, after Credico mentioned plans to speak to a reporter about his contacts with Stone in 2016. Stone apparently wanted to dissuade Credico from doing that. Hope u dont fuck Up my efforts to get Assange a pardon Stone wrote in another text to Credico, minutes earlier on the same day.
In September 2018 email to Mother Jones, Stone, without offering specifics, confirmed: I most definitely advocated a pardon for Assange.
Under Trump, official US policy toward WikiLeaks has not seemed to soften. In April 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo called the organization a hostile intelligence service. Two years later, the Justice Department indicted Assange. But in late 2016, Stone likely had reason to believe that a pardon was at least possiblejust weeks earlier, as WikiLeaks released emails damaging to Hillary Clinton, Trump had declared on the campaign trail that I love WikiLeaks.
Credicos recent testimony adds to the pardon story. According to the comedian, Stone first broached the idea of Trump pardoning Assange in late 2016. Credico testified that after Trumps electoral victory, Stone asked for help reaching Kunstler,who is Credicos friend, regarding a pardon for Assange. Kunstler, a civil rights lawyer who represents WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison, testified at Stones trial that her work for Harrison left her functioning in effect as a WikiLeaks lawyer.
Stone later made public statements urging Trump to pardon Assange. But his outreach to Kunstler is one of several pieces of evidence presented during the trial indicating that the connections between Trumps circle and WikiLeaks were more robust than previously known. Rick Gates, a former top Trump campaign aide, testified that he witnessed Trump speaking on the phone with Stone on July 31, 2016, shortly after WikiLeaks released a trove of Democratic National Committee emails. Immediately after hanging up with Stone, Gates testified, Trump told told him that more information would be coming.
Former Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon, who also testified against Stone, said the campaign considered Stone to be its access point to Assange and WikiLeaks. And Bannon suggested that Trump campaign officials believed Stone was working with WikiLeaks to influence the release of emails. Bannon said that in October 2016, he heard that Stone was somehow involved in WikiLeaks releasing emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Stone told Mother Jones last year that he urged Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News personality, to support a pardon for Assange. According to Credico, Stone said he hoped Napolitano would float the idea on Fox or directly to Trump. Credico has also told Mother Jones that Stone claimed to have secured Bannons support for an Assange pardon push.
Still, its unclear how extensive Stones effort really was. Napolitano said in a statement last year that he categorically denies working with Stone to get Assange a pardon. There is no evidence Bannon took steps to help Assange. William Burck, a lawyer for Bannon, did not respond to questions about Stones alleged claims.
Trump hasso far not pardoned Assange, and in May, the WikiLeaks founder was hit with a federal indictment for his alleged role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010.
The charges against Stone had no direct tie to his efforts to help Assange. Prosecutors crafted a far more narrow case. Stone was convicted of making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee, obstruction of justice, and witness tamperingthe latter of which involved Stone pressuring Credico not to provide testimony contradicting Stones false claims to Congress.
Credico has said he believes Stones talk of securing an Assange pardon, including Stones contact with Kunstler in 2016, was part of an effort to dangle a carrot to stop the comedian, a vocal WikiLeaks backer, from disputing Stones congressional testimony. He was trying to get me not to talk, Credico said.
SAN FRANCISCO A Justice Department official hinted on Monday that a yearslong fight over encrypted communications could become part of a sweeping investigation of big tech companies.
While a department spokesman declined to discuss specifics, a speech Monday by the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, pointed toward heightened interest in technology called end-to-end encryption, which makes it nearly impossible for law enforcement and spy agencies to get access to peoples digital communications.
Law enforcement and technologists have been arguing over encryption controls for more than two decades. On one side are privacy advocates and tech bosses like Apples chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, who believe people should be able to have online communications free of snooping. On the other side are law enforcement and some lawmakers, who believe tough encryption makes it impossible to track child predators, terrorists and other criminals.
Attorney General William P. Barr, joined by his British and Australian counterparts, recently pressed Facebooks chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, to abandon plans to embed end-to-end encryption in services like Messenger and Instagram. WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, already provides that tougher encryption.
Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes, Mr. Barr wrote in a letter last month.
Here is an explanation of the technology and the stakes.
End-to-end encryption scrambles messages in such a way that they can be deciphered only by the sender and the intended recipient. As the label implies, end-to-end encryption takes place on either end of a communication. A message is encrypted on a senders device, sent to the recipients device in an unreadable format, then decoded for the recipient.
There are several ways to do this, but the most popular works like this: A program on your device mathematically generates two cryptographic keys a public key and a private key.
The public key can be shared with anyone who wants to encrypt a message to you. The private key, or secret key, decrypts messages sent to you and never leaves your device. Think of it as a locked mailbox. Anyone with a public key can put something in your box and lock it, but only you have the private key to unlock it.
A more common form of encryption, known as transport layer encryption, relies on a third party, like a tech company, to encrypt messages as they move across the web.
With this type of encryption, law enforcement and intelligence agencies can get access to encrypted messages by presenting technology companies with a warrant or national security letter. The sender and recipient would not have to know about it.
End-to-end encryption ensures that no one can eavesdrop on the contents of a message while it is in transit. It forces spies or snoops to go directly to the sender or recipient to read the content of the encrypted message. Or they must hack directly into the senders or recipients device, something that can be harder to do at scale and makes mass surveillance much more difficult.
Privacy activists, libertarians, security experts and human rights activists argue that end-to-end encryption steers governments away from mass surveillance and toward a more targeted, constitutional form of intelligence gathering. But intelligence and law enforcement agencies argue that end-to-end encryption makes it much harder to track terrorists, pedophiles and human traffickers.
When Mr. Zuckerberg announced in March that Facebook would move all three of its messaging services to end-to-end encryption, he acknowledged the risk it presented for truly terrible things like child exploitation.
Encryption is a powerful tool for privacy, but that includes the privacy of people doing bad things, he said.
The debate over end-to-end encryption has had several iterations, beginning in the 1990s with the spread of Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP, software, an end-to-end encryption scheme designed by a programmer named Phil Zimmermann. As a result, the Clinton administration proposed a Clipper Chip, a back door for law enforcement and security agencies.
But the Clipper Chip provoked a backlash from a coalition of unlikely bedfellows, including the American Civil Liberties Union; the televangelist Pat Robertson; and Senators John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, and John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican. The White House backed down in 1996.
End-to-end encryption gained more traction in 2013, after data leaked by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden appeared to show the extent to which the N.S.A. and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies were gaining access to users communications through companies like Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Facebook without their knowledge.
Encrypted messaging apps like Signal and Wicker gained in popularity, and tech giants like Apple and Facebook started wrapping user data in end-to-end encryption.
Google, which pledged to add an end-to-end encryption option for Gmail users several years ago, has not made this the default option for email. But the company does offer a video-calling app, Duo, that is end-to-end encrypted.
As more communications moved to these end-to-end encrypted services, law enforcement and intelligence services around the world started to complain about datas going dark.
Government agencies have tried to force technology companies to roll back end-to-end encryption, or build back doors, like the Clipper Chip of the 1990s, into their encrypted products to facilitate government surveillance.
In the most aggressive of these efforts, the F.B.I. tried in 2016 to compel Apple in federal court to unlock the iPhone of one of the attackers in the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif.
Mr. Cook of Apple called the F.B.I.s effort the software equivalent of cancer. He said complying with the request would open the door to more invasive government interception down the road.
Maybe its an operating system for surveillance, maybe the ability for the law enforcement to turn on the camera, Mr. Cook told ABC News. I dont know where it stops.
Privacy activists and security experts noted that any back door created for United States law enforcement agencies would inevitably become a target for foreign adversaries, cybercriminals and terrorists.
Alex Stamos, the chief security officer of Yahoo at the time, likened the creation of an encryption back door to drilling a hole in the windshield. By trying to provide an entry point for one government, you end up cracking the structural integrity of the entire encryption shield.
The F.B.I. eventually backed down. Instead of forcing Apple to create a back door, the agency said it had paid an outside party to hack into the phone of the San Bernardino gunman.
Governments have stepped up their calls for an encryption back door.
Last year, Australian lawmakers passed a bill requiring technology companies to provide law enforcement and security agencies with access to encrypted communications. The bill gave the government the ability to get a court order allowing it to secretly order technology companies and technologists to re-engineer software and hardware so that it can be used to spy on users.
Australias law is based on Britains 2016 Investigatory Powers Act, which compels British companies to hand over the keys to unscramble encrypted data to law enforcement agencies. The Australian law could apply to overseas companies like Facebook and Apple.
Australias new law applies to network administrators, developers and other tech employees, forcing them to comply with secret government demands without notifying their employers.
Other governments are also considering new encryption laws. In India, Facebooks biggest market, officials told the countrys Supreme Court in October that Indian law requires Facebook to decrypt messages and supply them to law enforcement upon request.
They cant come into the country and say, We will establish a non-decryptable system, Indias attorney general, K.K. Venugopal, told the court, referring to Facebook and other big tech platforms. Indias Supreme Court has said it will reconvene on the issue in January.
EL PASO, Texas El Pasos new FBI chief is worried about an old problem: advances in encryption technology that may allow criminals to plot or commit crimes with impunity.
Something that concerns not just the FBI but all law enforcement is what we call lawful access. Technology companies are deploying encryption software in which the customer can encrypt and only (they) and the end-user can access, said Luis M. Quesada, special agent in charge of the El Paso Field Office as of this month.
Encryption is useful when it comes to protecting private information like banking, he said, but unrestricted use of this technology could pose a threat to the public. It means we couldnt follow kidnappings, child pornography, terrorist acts the lone terrorist shooters which usually communicate through (digital) platforms, he said.
One example cited is the Sutherland Springs, Texas, shooting, in which a gunman killed 26 people and left 20 others injured at First Baptist Church. The shooters phone was encrypted and police didnt at the time have the technology to find out if he had co-conspirators.
We want to know if the shooter was communicating with somebody else, if he was being radicalized. It could lead us to somebody else to prevent the next event. Or if we arrest a child pornographer wed like to know who hes communicating with so we have a map of who hes (talking to) and save more kids, Quesada said. He suggested the problem could be addressed through legislation of these technologies.
Quesadas comments on Tuesday echoed concerns expressed in July by Attorney General William P. Barr and, more recently, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). Some of it centers around Facebooks plan to provide state-of-the-art encryption on messages in all of its platforms, but concerns other companies applications as well.
At the July technology conference at Fordham University, Barr noted that one Mexican drug cartel was using WhatsApp as its privacy communication method to keep U.S. authorities from finding out when the next fentanyl shipment would be sent across the border.
Efforts to curb unfettered access by the general public to encrypted technology go back to the Obama administration and further. Back in 2015, then-FBI Director James B. Comey warned the Senate Judiciary Committee that malicious actors could take advantage of Web technology to plot violent crimes, steal private information or sexually abuse children. Back then the catchphrase wasnt lawful access, but instead going dark.
Former El Paso Border Patrol Sector Chief Victor M. Manjarrez said law-enforcement officials have been fighting criminals use of technology since the days of two-way handheld radios.
We came across encrypted radios used by drug traffickers in Southern Arizona in the early 2000s. You could hear them talking but couldnt (make out) the words, he said.
Manjarrez, now associate director of the Center for Law & Human Behavior at the University of Texas at El Paso, said even if Congress were actually cooperative with each other and restricted encrypted technology, organized criminals will eventually find a way to defeat it.
The problem is that technology changes so fast that transnational criminal organizations can overcome obstacles much quicker than we can change or legislate policy, he said.
Manjarrez said the only way law-enforcement agencies can prevent crimes shielded by technology is to be proactive.
Law-enforcement by nature is reactive. At some point we need to decide we have to be proactive. Just like the Department of Defense in terms of counterterrorism, they seek out the threats. At some point, I think, well have to accept that in law enforcement, he said.
Visit the BorderReport.com homepage for the latest exclusive stories and breaking news about issues along the United States-Mexico border.
When Google said it had achieved quantum supremacy by eclipsing the performance of classical supercomputers, experts reacted with both excitement and concern about how next-generation computing could affect everything from medicine to financial portfolio optimisation.
In October, the tech group said its Sycamore quantum processor had, in 200 seconds, performed a task that would take the worlds best supercomputer 10,000 years to complete, although the magnitude of this claim is disputed by the likes of IBM.
Quantum computers which exploit the quirky behaviour of subatomic particles that can be in two states simultaneously may prove a useful technology for tasks requiring optimisation and comparison; that is, to find the best route or choice by examining all the options. This could range from finding the most cost-effective route for shipping goods to the most efficient way to extract natural resources.
Experts say quantum computing has the potential to transform materials science and drug development by comprehensively modelling molecules, while its ability to model interconnected dependencies could optimise financial portfolios.
However, cyber security experts and intelligence agencies worry that data security encryption systems will be blown away by the quantum tornado.
Encryption underpins everything from instant messaging services such as WhatsApp to online banking, ecommerce and secure web browsing. It uses algorithms to scramble data from the sender and gives the receiver a decryption key. These algorithms are based on mathematical functions that are easy to compute in one direction but hard to invert. Computing the product of two numbers is easy but factoring large prime numbers is difficult.
Even if the first quantum computer does not come for 20 years we are, in a sense, already late
Even with the biggest computers, factoring is hard once you are looking at numbers into, say, three or four hundred digits, says Christophe Petit, senior lecturer at Birmingham universitys School of Computer Science. There just isnt a method to efficiently solve that problem and encryption relies on that hardness.
With the extra power provided by quantum computers, problems such as factoring are easily scalable. The day a big quantum computer is built, all the cryptography we are using today is dead, warns Mr Petit.
It is uncertain when the first true quantum computer will arrive. There is also a long journey between building a computer with quantum-like properties compared with a full-scale, commercial version, partly because of the ultra-low temperature conditions required by quantum computers. However, there are fears that a malicious state could get far enough to wreak havoc.
Cracking encryption could enable a rogue actor to spy on communications and data including classified intelligence flowing between military agencies or gain backdoor access to critical infrastructures and facilities. Financial data also relies heavily on quantum-vulnerable encryption.
To crack encryption, all you need is one working quantum computer under laboratory conditions, says Andersen Cheng, chief executive of Post-Quantum, a cyber security company. Mr Cheng likens it to building an engine and gearbox compared with manufacturing an entire car. A lot of nation states are building quantum computers and they just need a working engine to start cracking encryption, he says.
In the public discourse, people are saying it will be 10 to 20 years until we have the first full commercially available quantum computer, says Mr Cheng. In the cyber security domain, they say it will be more like five to 10 years, but the intelligence community [has] become worried...over the past two years. They believe a working quantum computer will arrive much earlier than we think.
Wednesday, 20 November, 2019
Agencies including the National Security Agency and National Institute of Standards and Technology in the US, and Government Communications Headquarters in the UK, are working on post-quantum cyber security.
To build quantum-resistant encryption, cyber teams seek out categories of problems for which simultaneous processing power confers no advantage. These should be problems that are already understood but take substantial time to solve.
Lattice-based cryptography is a leading approach explored by the likes of IBM. It uses high-dimension geometric structures to hide information in ways considered impossible to solve without the key, even for quantum computers. An alternative technique, borrowed from the satellite industry, deliberately introduces random errors into the encryption process to make the output look different every time, even if the same input is being encrypted, according to Mr Cheng.
While a small network of cyber researchers has been exploring post-quantum security protocols for decades, experts say we need to raise the pace. We want to be ready not just when quantum computers come out but 20 years earlier, says Mr Petit. We should be rolling out encryption in evoting systems, medical data, and aircraft, for instance that will be secure for decades. Even if the first quantum computer does not come for 20 years we are, in a sense, already late.
EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) When it comes to our phones and computers we all want to have privacy. However, the El Paso FBI says that privacy can become harmful when used by criminals.
Nowadays, a large majority of people have apps on their phones with end to end encryption. Making messages unavailable to third parties.
Warrant proof encryption has become more available to the general public. It prevents law enforcement from accessing messages even after they have a warrant to search a phone.
If we dont have access to encrypted communications then we are blind to that, and that could give a whole platform to individuals that get socialized with each other or radicalized or influenced themselves, said Luis Quesada the El Paso FBI Special Agent in Charge.
It has been two years since the Sutherland Springs church shooting and the FBI says they have yet to access the shooters phone due to the advanced encryption on the device.
The FBI cannot comment about the El Paso Walmart shooters phone since it is still under investigation. However, they say encryption gives radicalized individuals a means of protected communication.
They write manifestos, they put them out. If we dont have access to that, thats a threat to all of us as a society, said Quesada.
According to the FBI advance encryptions are used by drug cartels, human traffickers, child pornographers and radical individuals.
The problem is with this type of encryption these companies are deploying, we cant get into them, said Quesada. We saw from the Sutherland shooting so you could imagine any other crime from child pornographers and human trafficking they depend on communication.
However, Facebook has been testing end to end encryption to provide more privacy to users on messenger and Instagram direct messages.
This raises the concerns of government officials and law enforcement agencies. The U.S. Attorney General William Barr has been working to have Facebook allow law enforcement to have a back door to read those encrypted messages.
There has to be a balance for the safety and security of the general population, said Quesada.
