Bitcoin and Ethereum Weekly Technical Analysis August 31st, 2020 – Yahoo Finance

Bitcoin

Bitcoin rose by 0.57% in the week ending 30th August. Following a 2.19% slide from the previous week, Bitcoin ended the week at $11,730.0.

It was a bullish start to the week. Bitcoin rose to a Monday intraweek high $11,847.0 before hitting reverse.

Falling short of the first major resistance level at $12,305 Bitcoin slid to a Tuesday intraweek low $11,137.0.

Bitcoin fell through the first major support level at $11,205, Bitcoin a moving back through to $11,700 levels on Sunday.

4 days in the green that included a 2.07% gain on Sunday delivered the upside for the week.

Bitcoin would need to avoid a fall through $11,571 pivot to support a run the first major resistance level at $12,006.

Support from the broader market would be needed for Bitcoin to break out from last weeks high $11,847.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and last weeks high would likely cap any upside.

In the event of a breakout, Bitcoin could test the second major resistance level at $12,281. Expect plenty of resistance at $12,000, however.

Failure to avoid a fall through the $11,571 pivot would bring the first major support level at $11,296 into play.

Barring an extended sell-off, Bitcoin should avoid sub-$11,000 and the second major support level at $10,861.

In the event of a sell-off, expect support at $10,500 to be tested in the week.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin was down by 0.02% to $11,727.2. A mixed start to the week saw Bitcoin fall to an early Monday morning low $11,713.0 before rising to a high $11,744.0.

Bitcoin left the major support and resistance levels untested at the start of the week.

Ethereum rose by 9.73% in the week ending 30th August. Reversing a 9.87% slide from the previous week, Ethereum ended the week at $428.94.

A bullish start to the week saw Ethereum rise to a Monday high $411.97 hitting reverse.

Falling well short of the first major resistance level at $432.00, Ethereum slid to Tuesday intraweek low $369.36.

Ethereum steered clear of the 23.6% FIB of $367 and the first major support level at $364 in the pullback.

Finding support in the latter part of the week, Ethereum struck a Sunday intraweek high $429.90 before easing back. In spite of the rally, Ethereum came up short of the first major resistance level at $432.

5 days in the green that included a 4.31% gain on Monday and 7.62% rally on Sunday delivered the upside.

A 5.99% slide on Tuesday limited the upside for the week, however.

Ethereum would need to avoid a fall through the $409 pivot to support a run at the first major resistance level at $449.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Ethereum to break out from an early Monday high $430.55.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level would likely cap any upside.

In the event of another breakout, Ethereum could test the second major resistance level at $470.

Failure to avoid a fall through the $409 pivot would bring the first major support level at $389 into play.

Barring an extended broader-market sell-off, however, Ethereum should steer well clear of the 38.2% FIB of $367. The second major support level sits at $349.

At the time of writing, Ethereum was down by 0.42% to $427.14. A mixed start to the day saw Ethereum rise to an early Monday morning high $430.55 before falling to a low $424.11.

Story continues

Ethereum left the major support and resistance levels untested at the start of the week.

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

Read more:
Bitcoin and Ethereum Weekly Technical Analysis August 31st, 2020 - Yahoo Finance

Bitcoin balks as the Fed talks, DeFi surge continues: Weekly recap – Cointelegraph

This week was quite eventful for crypto and traditional markets, and investors will note that as central banks introduce new monetary expansion policy, Bitcoin (BTC) and altcoins have begun to forge their own path.

Before reading the rundown, catch up on the most-read stories centered around the price of Bitcoin, the macroeconomic pictureand the DeFi phenomenon gaining traction.

Central bank policies first crafted in the wake of the Great Recession, which were then seen as extraordinary, have become ordinary and concerns are creeping in from all corners of the globe.

Quantitative easing, low interest rates for prolonged periods, stimulus paymentsand other actions have increasingly been used to prop up the economy, jobsand financial markets ailing from governmentresponses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This has caused the United States Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to once again rewrite fiscal policy rules to keep the country from sinking under the weight of what seemed to be almost certain financial collapse.

The scope of these efforts is a sharp turn from previous measures such as TARP that focused largely on the financial industry and theyve led us to a seminal moment for Bitcoin and other digital assets.

That chill you feel isnt the end of summer;its a collective shiver after remarks made this week by Fed officials in Jackson Hole.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell acknowledged the Feds new approach this week, explaining that the onus is on bolstering the U.S. labor market with fewer worries about an uptick in inflation.

Tellingly, while Powell acknowledged that past declines in unemployment led to concerns about rising inflation and prompted the Fed to raise interest rates,the central bank will no longer take such actions.

This is a potentially frightening prospect for anyone interested in the value of money and has seen the disastrous effects of an unrestrained expansion of the money supply in countries such as Venezuela, Russia, Brazil and elsewhere.

The reason why it matters for digital assets is two-fold: technology and anti-inflation potential an ability to tap into unbanked communities and spread the credit and confidence.

In terms of market reaction, longer-term U.S. Treasuryyields climbed to their highest levels in months on Thursday, steepening the yield curve, after Powell announced this new policy framework promoting higher inflation to spur economic recovery and job creation.

Cryptocurrency market weekly performance snapshot. Source: Coin360

Going forward, it is worth keeping an eye on the broader commodities complex and also how expectations develop. Correlations that may apply now may no longer be true, especially those related to inflation.

Not surprisingly, Bitcoin (BTC) and gold traded in lock-step for much of the session, initially spiking higherbefore reversing and falling to new session lows.

Another week brought another wave of capital inflows to DeFi projects. The total amount locked is now at $7.22 billion, and the top three assets which include the likes of Aave, Maker and Curve have over $1 billion locked each.

Total value locked in DeFi (USD). Source: Defi Pulse

The total number of Bitcoinlocked in the ecosystem has now risen to 46,086, with Wrapped Bitcoin (wBTC) accounting for 30,798, followed by renBTC with 8,408. Surprisingly, even though transaction costs on the Ethereum network have fallen from recent highs, it failed to translate into a meaningful rise in trading volumes on decentralized exchanges.

This suggests that the market likely pressured out smaller participants and is now dominated by larger funds and token holders.

As such, future growth is more of a byproduct of innovation and further development of the underlying infrastructure capital flows do not seem to be an issue, as evidenced by ongoing growth across just about every known DeFi platform.

According to the latest post by the CME Group, the number of unique accounts that have traded Bitcoin futures since launch exceeds 5,400. As new participants enter the market, the number of large open interest holders (LOIHs) continues to grow. Andon that note, a record number of 94 holders was established the week of Aug. 18.

CME BTC futures open interest and volume. Source: Skew

Furthermore, the number of LOIHs has risen sharply since Q4 2019, which indicates growing institutional interest because an LOIH is a holder of at least 25 contracts. A record number of 94 holders was established the week of Aug. 18.

In addition to that, along with the rise in LOIHs, average daily open interest has been steadily increasing since March and for the last four months has exceeded average daily volume (ADV).

Open Interest reached a record of 15,406 contracts (77,030 equivalent Bitcoin) on Aug. 17 and is averaging 13,672 contracts for the month, a 40% increase from July. ADV in August is 9,570 contracts (47,850 equivalent Bitcoin), up roughly 30% from July.

Go here to read the rest:
Bitcoin balks as the Fed talks, DeFi surge continues: Weekly recap - Cointelegraph

Big Lessons From The Twitter Bitcoin Hack | Avast – Security Boulevard

Graham Ivan Clark, Onel de Guzman and Michael Calce. These three names will go down in the history of internet commerce, right alongside Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos.

Were all familiar with the high-profile entrepreneurs who gave us the tools and services that underpin our digital economy. However, Clark, de Guzman and Calce are equally notable as leading members of the Hall of Fame of script kiddies youngsters who precociously shed light on the how these same tools and services are riddled with profound privacy and security flaws.

The trouble is Clark, 17, of Tampa, Florida, is teaching us much the same lessons in the summer of 2020 that de Guzman and Calce did in the spring of 2000. De Guzman authored the I Love You email virus that circled the globe infecting millions of PCs; Calce, aka Mafiaboy, released the Melissa Internet worm that knocked offline Amazon, CNN, eBay and Yahoo.

Judging from the success of script kiddies, the tech giants apparently have not learned very much about security in 20 years. Clark was arrested in late July and charged with masterminding the hijacking of the Twitter accounts of A-list celebrities, and then Tweeting from those accounts to pull off a Bitcoin scam. His caper is worrisome on two counts. First it shows how resistant companies continue to be with respect to embracing very doable cyber hygiene practices measures that would prevent these sorts of hacks. And second, it reminds us how much capacity to wreak havoc truly malicious parties not just script kiddies possess. This is chilling considering the times were in. On the cusp of electing a U.S. president, with the world struggling to recover from a global pandemic, there are nuanced lessons we can learn from the Twitter Bitcoin hack. Heres what all consumers and companies should heed going forward.

Court records and reporting by the New York Times portray Clark as a self-absorbed youth who got started down the wrong path by cheating other players of the video game Minecraft, and then gravitating to mobile hacking scams to steal Bitcoin. Using the handle Open and OneHCF, Clark became notorious for selling cool Minecraft names and accessories, like capes for characters, for $50 to $100 to other players; hed make the sales pitch, collect the cash, but then never delivered the goods, or quickly reclaimed the items.

He next graduated to SIM swapping. This involved gathering personal information about a targeted victim, and then using that intel to persuade a wireless carrier employee into swapping the victims SIM card metadata onto a blank SIM card in his possession. In 2019, Clark gained control of the smartphone of a tech investor from Seattle and allegedly stole 164 Bitcoins, then worth $864,000, from him. The U.S. Secret Service got involved and returned 100 Bitcoins to the victim. Notably, authorities let Clark off the hook, though they had evidence of his role, according to the New York Times coverage.

Emboldened, Clark next took aim at Twitter. Clark and several co-conspirators used a two-step approach. First he phished his way onto Twitters corporate network. Next, they moved laterally, where ever they could, to gain an understanding of how Twitters network was laid out.

This knowledge then enabled them to target additional employees who did have access to our account-support tools, the company said in a statement. Using the credentials of employees with access to these tools, the attackers targeted 130 Twitter accounts, ultimately tweeting from 45, accessing the DM inbox of 36 and downloading the Twitter Data of seven.

The intruders took control of the accounts of Barack Obama, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg and Kanye West, among others. Tweeting from the official accounts of these celebrities, they carried out Bitcoin variants of the classic Nigerian Prince-type of grift, hauling in $118,000 in Bitcoin payments in a little over an hour, before Twitter spotted the bogus activity and shut it down.

Its easy to dismiss a teenager cleverly using rogue Tweets to sell gullible victims on a too-good-to-be-true, get-rich-quick scheme as a triviality. However, the Twitter Bitcoin hack highlights the capacity for social media to be abused for malicious purposes. In these times, this is anything but a trivial development. Consider how social media services have emerged as potent tools for influencing public opinion at a time when some weighty questions about civilization as we know it are on the table: Will democracy give way to authoritarianism in the U.S.? Can the nations of the world unite to arrest climate change? What will the global economy look like post Covid-19? Is social injustice and skewed wealth distribution destined to carry on, as usual?

Further reading: The big Twitter hack vs. privacy

Another script-kiddie hack, of sorts, vividly illustrates the immense potential of social media services to be abused by anyone, with whatever motives. Im referring to how the youthful users of the TikTok and K-pop social media sites registered en masse for tickets to attend a Trump rally last June in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This duped the rally organizers into bragging about receiving 1 million reservation requests. Only 6,200 people showed up at a venue set up to cater to an overflow crowd of 20,000.

Meanwhile, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has come under fire this summer from his own employees for equivocating and ultimately declining to do anything about Trumps Facebook posts inflaming the George Floyd protests. By contrast, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has been forthcoming about details of how his company got hacked and has promised to do better. And on July 21, Dorsey, in something of a mea culpa, also directed the removal of thousands of Twitter QAnon accounts used to spread baseless conspiracy theories.

Zuckerberg finally caved to public pressure, and on August 7 followed Dorseys lead by suspending the Facebook account of one of the largest public groups fomenting QAnon conspiracy theories. QAnon for several years now has been using Twitter and Facebook to kindle fear and hatred. You might recall this is the group that spread the Pizzagate, a conspiracy theory accusing Hillary Clinton of operating a child sex-trafficking ring from a Washington, D.C., pizzeria. This led to a vigilante gunman turning up at the restaurant in December 2016 and opening fire into a closet.

Im not at all surprised that the public is demanding that social media companies get more in line with the social justice movement. Moving in that direction would put Twitter and Facebook in much better standing with a wide percentage of the populace. Yet doing so conflicts with the profit making imperative of their own boards of directors.

Facebook and Twitter are in the unenviable position of being stuck in between titanic, multi-front societal conflicts, observes Karthik Krishnan, CEO of Concentric.ai, a San Jose, California-based supplier of artificial intelligence systems. Theres no way these social media giants are going to make everyone happy.

It would be a major step forward if Twitter and Facebook would at least do more to shore up the security posture of their corporate IT systems. Like many large enterprises, the social media giants have put far too much emphasis on agility on opening up their systems to all-comers and not nearly enough on basic cyber hygiene. Theres really no excuse for this. Twitter has a market valuation north of $30 billion dollars, yet when its Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) left last December, the company did nothing; it was still searching for a replacement CISO seven months later when the celebrities accounts got hijacked.

Clarks successful hack showed Twitter was not even taking a least privilege approach to account access, which is a baby step towards adopting full zero trust identity and access management (IAM) procedures, something that many progressive enterprises in the tech and financial sectors have moved to. Had it been enforcing least privileged access, Twitter would have had a very narrowly defined and closely monitored list of employees who could take control of the celebrities accounts. It wouldve been much harder for the young Mr. Clark to find, and dupe, someone on that short list. And even if he did, any unusual use of that access would have quickly tripped an alert.

Zero trust, actually, is where Twitter and Facebook should already be, given the sensitive personal data they collect and monetize. Zero trust boils down to never trust anyone until they can prove who they are and why they deserve access. In order to do this, zero trust uses automation and machine-learning to slice and dice access queries on several planes. This makes breaches much more difficult to pull off; it limits the damage that can be caused by any hacker who does break through.

We could all just wait for human users to somehow become much less gullible. Short of that ever happening, zero trust is the future. Twitter and Facebook should have been steering towards zero trust long ago. Will they do so now, given all thats happened thus far in 2020? Well see. Ill keep watch.

Read the original here:
Big Lessons From The Twitter Bitcoin Hack | Avast - Security Boulevard

Over $1 Billion Ethereum-Based Tokens Vulnerable to ‘Fake Deposit Exploit’ – Bitcoin News

A number of university researchers published a study that demystifies the fake deposit vulnerability in Ethereum-based smart contracts. The findings show that over 7,000 tokens worth more than $1 billion built on top of Ethereum are vulnerable to two types of attacks that exploit smart contracts.

Researchers from the University of Queensland, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Zhejiang University, and Peking University have published a paper that describes a vulnerability held by over 7,000 Ethereum-based tokens.

Essentially, the tokens created have verification methods that are subpar to ERC20 contracts released after 2017. The vulnerability allows the tokens codebase to be manipulated and hackers can easily steal millions of dollars by executing the fake deposit vulnerability.

What is worse is that there are more than 25 million smart contracts built using the Ethereum network and the researchers say only 0.36% of them have released their source code according to our dataset.

Moreover, the paper discusses that the tokens are vulnerable on both decentralized exchanges (dex) and centralized exchanges (cex) because they allow these coins to be swapped without comprehensive verification.

The team of researchers leveraged a tool called Deposafe, which allows the testing of a large number of ETH-based smart contracts.

In this work, we have systematically characterized the fake deposit vulnerability in Ethereum. Deposafe, an automated tool is proposed to perform the detection and verification of the vulnerability, the paper states.

We demonstrate the efficiency of Deposafe with experiments on a large number of smart contracts. Our observations reveal the prevalence of fake deposit vulnerability in the ERC20 smart contracts, the universitys scholars wrote.

The investigators found that 7,735 tokens can be influenced by the fake deposit vulnerability using a Type-I attack. While 7,716 tokens that are vulnerable to Type-II attack with a market cap of over $1 billion.

The number of holders and transactions would be 695K and 4.6 million respectively, the paper stresses.

The paper also identifies the dexes that have high active trading on a daily basis and could suffer from the fake deposit attack. Dex platforms listed in the researchers paper include Ether Delta, DDEX, and IDEX.

Centralized exchanges (cex) that fall victim to the fake deposit attack could lose substantial amounts of funds.

If a cex allows these tokens to be traded without comprehensive verification, the financial loss will be tremendous, the paper highlights.

The authors of the report say that the efforts they have provided can contribute to bring developer awareness and hopefully promote best operational practices across blockchains.

The listed cex platforms mentioned in the researchers study include companies like Kraken, Binance, and Coinbase. ERC20s who are allegedly vulnerable to the fake deposit exploit include BRC token, PWR token, BAT, HPT token, Cloudbric, RPL token, Moviecredits, and more.

What do you think about the fake deposit attack? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Excerpt from:
Over $1 Billion Ethereum-Based Tokens Vulnerable to 'Fake Deposit Exploit' - Bitcoin News

Snowden to testify in defense of creator of Football Leaks – The Union Leader

LISBON - Fugitive U.S. intelligence leaker Edward Snowden will be one of 45 witnesses testifying in Portugal in defense of Rui Pinto, whose trove of 70 million documents exposed the dealings of European soccer clubs, Pinto's lawyer said on Monday.

Portuguese prosecutors have said the compilation of the Football Leaks data, which from 2016 revealed transfer fees, contracts and information on players' agencies, led to unauthorized access to Portuguese data, attempted extortion and violation of the privacy of correspondence.

Pinto's lawyer Francisco Teixeira da Mota said the trial would start on Friday, but that he did not know whether Snowden, now living in Russia, would testify via video link.

Pinto, 31, acknowledges creating the trove but says there was no crime because he was acting in the public interest.

The data showed how some of the richest and most prominent figures in soccer avoided tax by channeling earnings offshore; provided insight into wealthy Gulf individuals and organizations who have become influential in soccer; and examined the huge sums flowing through some leading clubs and the uneven way authorities have applied the sport's rules.

The documents provided some of the evidence that led to a ban - since overturned - on Manchester City of the English Premier League competing in the European Champions League for alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play rules.

French prosecutors say they have collaborated with Pinto and other countries have expressed their desire to do the same.

Pinto was detained in January 2019. He was freed from house arrest this month and put under witness protection.

William Bourdon, also defending Pinto, has represented Snowden in the past.

"Rui Pinto is the Snowden of international corruption and (he) must be recognized as one of the greatest whistleblowers of the beginning of this century," Bourdon told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Snowden is wanted in the United States for espionage, but says that his leak of secret files in 2013, which revealed vast domestic and international surveillance by the NSA, was in the public interest.

In January, Pinto said he was responsible for disclosing hundreds of thousands of files about alleged financial schemes used by Angolan billionaire and former first daughter Isabel dos Santos to build a vast business empire.

Angola has begun criminal investigations but dos Santos has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.

See the rest here:
Snowden to testify in defense of creator of Football Leaks - The Union Leader

Letter to the Editor: Reality Winner deserves Americas pardon before Snowden – The Delaware County Daily Times

To the Times:

I was stunned on Wednesday to see a Los Angeles Daily News editorial reprinted in the local Daily Times. I wasnt surprised by the occasional reprint of an editorial from another newspaper that alarmed me. Not at all. It is refreshing to read quality viewpoints from newsprint sources outside our region, or from anywhere on the planet. My shock was the subject matter and the full page headline that introduced it.

As noted in the editorial, Edward Snowden is a former Booz Allen employee subcontracted to the NSA, the National Security Agency, who leaked classified documents, lots of them, to the news media in 2013. He eventually ran off to Russia for political asylum to avoid trial in an American courtroom. He lives in Russia by his own choosing and not in a prison cell where Ms. Reality Winner, another NSA subcontractor and recipient of an Air Force Commendation Medal, has spent the last two years. More about Ms. Winner below.

The earnest and numerous crush of articles, essays, YouTube monologues, talk radio rants, all imploring a Trump pardon for Snowden, are part of a recent snowball campaign by conservative organizations feeding off of Trumps inside hints that he would add Snowden to his unending list of bogus pardons. A gamblers sure bet for Snowden-backers is to get the pardon before Nov. 3. Lame duck presidents can barely float in the tainted pond that is Washington politics.

For me the incredibility of the editorial championing Snowdens total forgiveness is that a more deserving person sits in a federal prison and will stay there until her excessive five year and three- days sentence (longest sentence ever under the Espionage Act) is completed, no matter how well-behaved or repentant she made be. In a more just time, Ms. Winners crime compared to Snowdens crime, would have made her eligible for a patriots medal of service to her country.

In May 2017, she printed a document showing how Russian intelligence hacked a U.S. voting software supplier and attempted to breach more than 100 election systems in the days before the Nov. 6, 2016 election. The importance here is that the document was shared in August 2017 well after the United States and the world had accepted as fact that the Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. What was missing was the newly elected presidents and the GOP congressional legislators refusal to believe what everyone else knew was fact. Reality Winner, an intelligence specialist found proof that Russian interference occurred and was being hidden from the nation. She shared it with a news outlet and was punished severely by those who continued to deny the evidence.

Who should be pardoned? Justice and decency supports Reality Winner.

Robert N. McLaughlin, Ridley Park

Originally posted here:
Letter to the Editor: Reality Winner deserves Americas pardon before Snowden - The Delaware County Daily Times

Democrat asks intel agencies if they’re surveilling members of Congress – The Hill

Rep. Anna EshooAnna Georges EshooHillicon Valley: Zuckerberg acknowledges failure to take down Kenosha military group despite warnings | Election officials push back against concerns over mail-in voting, drop boxes Democrat asks intel agencies if they're surveilling members of Congress Overnight Health Care: Supreme Court to hear ObamaCare arguments 1 week after election | NYC positive COVID-19 tests hit record low MORE (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked two intelligence agencies on Friday if surveillance has been conducted on members of Congress in the last decade.

In a letter to the heads of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Eshoo raised alarm over allegations in a book published earlier this year by journalist Barton Gellman. The book includedclaims about an NSA surveillance tool used by former contractor Edward Snowden to allegedly search for communications associated with a House member's publicly listed official email address where constituents can contact their office.

Eshoo further pointed to a claim from Snowden in the book that he wiretapped the internet communications" of the so-called Gang of Eight theheads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees and top party leaders in both chambers as well as the Supreme Court. But the claim appeared to be untrue because Snowden couldn't find the private email addresses belonging to the lawmakers and Supreme Court justices.

Eshoo expressed alarm about the allegations, saying such surveillance could violate constituents' privacy and threatened the separation of powers.

"The surveillance of Congressional and judicial communications by the executive branch seriously threatens the separation of powers principles of our Constitution. While no member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, or any other individual is above the law, their communications, like those of all Americans, should only be collected by the government pursuant to a specific warrant authorized by an independent court as part of a criminal or intelligence investigation," Eshoo wrote.

Neither the ODNI nor the NSA immediately returned requests for comment.

The California Democrat asked the ODNI and NSA to answer a series of questions by Sept. 28, pressing the agencies on how many times in the last decade an intelligence community employee or contractor has conducted surveillance including "contents of communications, metadata or any other information" on members of Congress, federal judges, Supreme Court justices or any other employees of either the legislative or judicial branches.

She also asked if "technical safeguards" are in place to prevent intelligence community employees or contractors from using databases to search for information about people in the legislative or judicial branches without legal authorization.

"Our system of government is premised on the fundamental idea of separation of powers. Three co-equal branches of government with constitutionally prescribed checks and balances maintain independent spheres of government," Eshoo wrote.

There is precedent of U.S. intelligence agencies spying on members of Congress and their staff.

In 2014, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) inspector general report found that its officers spied on Senate Intelligence Committee investigators preparing a report on the agency's interrogation program.

The CIA also acknowledged in 1975that it had kept files on then-Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), dating back to when she served as a lawyer for a client that appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The CIA also said that it had kept counterintelligence files on at least three other members of Congress as part of its operations against critics of the Vietnam War.

The Justice Department in 2013 charged Snowden of violating the Espionage Act for disclosing details of highly classified government surveillance programs. Snowden has remained in Russia in the years since then to avoid prosecution.

Read this article:
Democrat asks intel agencies if they're surveilling members of Congress - The Hill

Ambazonia, Remedies, and the First Amendment Reason.com – Reason

I had never heard of Ambazonia before Friday, but I now see that it is a breakaway part of Cameroon, in an area also known as the South Cameroons, though it's actually northwest of much of Cameroon. Here's the opinion that enlightened me on the subject, decided Feb. 6, but just added to Westlaw; it's by Judge Percy Anderson (C.D. Cal.), Cameroon Ass'n of Victims of Ambazonia Terrorism Inc. v. Ambazonia Foundation Inc.:

According to the Complaint, defendants Ambazonia Foundation Inc. ("AFI"), Ambazonia Interim Government ("AIG"), Ambazonia Governing Council ("AGC"), Ambazonia Defense Forces ("ADF"), Tapang Ivo Tanku ("Tanku"), and Christopher Anu Fobeneh ("Fobeneh") (collectively "Defendants"), are associated with and control an armed militia group seeking to overthrow the government in the Northwest and Southwest ("NOSO") region of Cameroon. [Some of the defendants allegedly live in the U.S. or are organized here. -EV] The Complaint alleges that Defendants announced on January 7, 2020, that there will be a "total lockdown of NOSO during the periods of February 6, 2020 through February 12, 2020" and instructed fighters associated with the militia "that anyone who steps out of their homes during that lockdown, or operates any business, will be abducted, or killed." These allegations are similar to allegations contained in the prior actions filed by Plaintiff's counsel, in which the plaintiffs in those prior action alleged that the militia's leaders announced lockdowns for other periods of time. CAVAT asserts that the lockdown threats, as well as abductions and killings in Cameroon, harm CAVAT's efforts to provide humanitarian services in the region.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims against Defendants for: (1) conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign county in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956; (2) providing material support to terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339A; (3) expedition against a friendly country in violation of the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. 960; and (4) financing of terrorism in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339C. The Ex Parte TRO seeks to temporarily restrain Defendants from:

"1. Engaging in conduct or actions, or conspire to engage in such conducts or actions, including actions such as abductions, arson, arrests, killings, kidnappings, human rights violations, war crimes, assault, battery, harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, stalk, threaten, hit, abuse, or disturb the peace of plaintiff, its members, its victims, or those similarly situated.

"2. Providing any assistance like money, logistics, expert advise or assistance, personnel, weapons, bullets, to the armed non-state groups in Cameroon.

"3. Providing or preparing for, or furnishing the money for, any military expedition or enterprise to be carried out against the Republic of Cameroon.

"4. Collecting funds, directly or indirectly, with the intention that such funds be used, or knowledge that the funds will be used, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such an act is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

"5. Ordered to declare, by spokesman and de facto leader, Ivo Tanku Tapang for AGC defendants, and Communications Secretary Christoperh Anu Fobeneh a.k.a. Chris Anu for AIG defendants, and post on their social media forums on Facebook and YouTube that: 'Any civilians who do not obey their 'total lockdown' orders on February 6, 2020 through February 12, 2020, will not be harmed and they will not agree or provide funding to the armed groups to commit any acts of killings, abductions, destruction of property, torture, maiming of anyone.'"

Trying to stop an alleged civil war / revolution / reprisal against civilians in Cameroon via a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court seems like a tall order, and Judge Anderson doesn't go for it. He rejects the demand on procedural grounds (such as failure to adequately explain why notice wasn't given to the defendants), but adds:

The Court additionally concludes that CAVAT has not satisfied its burden to satisfy the requirements for injunctive relief or to establish that the injunction it seeks would prevent the irreparable harm it claims it will suffer as a result of the most recent lockdown threats.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that any injunction the Court could issue would provide Plaintiff with the relief it seeks. The criminal statutes on which CAVAT bases its civil claims already prohibit the activities CAVAT seeks to prevent Defendants from conducting, and at least two of those statutes do not appear to create a private right of action. "It would be doubly difficult to find a private damage action within the Neutrality Act, since this would have the practical effect of eliminating prosecutorial discretion in an area where the normal desirability of such discretion is vastly augmented by the broad leeway traditionally accorded the Executive in matters of foreign affairs."

Additionally, although the Antiterrorism Act ("ATA") authorizes a civil remedy for nationals of the United States to sue for injuries they have suffered "by reason of an act of international terrorism" and recover treble damages, the statute does not expressly provide for injunctive relief. Plaintiff cites to no authority applying the ATA in which a court has granted injunctive relief like that sought here. Instead, the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks appears to be designed more to trigger future contempt proceedings than to prevent Plaintiff's irreparable harm.

The Court additionally notes that by seeking an order requiring Defendants to make certain statements disavowing a lockdown, CAVAT asks this Court to compel Defendants to make certain statements. That type of relief raises significant First Amendment considerations. See Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of Blind, Inc. (1988). The First Amendment protects not only "the right to speak freely," but also "the right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard (1977); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) ("[O]ne important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say.").

Read more:

Ambazonia, Remedies, and the First Amendment Reason.com - Reason

Online Platforms and the First Amendment Problem – The McGill International Review

Although online platforms have existed for decades, their potentially counterproductive influence on electoral integrity has given rise to an impasse. Tech stars, like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and state bodies are seldom on the same page when it comes to managing the power of technology services, promoting freedom of speech, and protecting First Amendment rights. Actors on each side have actively debated whether global technology firms threaten free expression, and how this can be regulated to preserve Americans (and other international users) rights. Moreover, the two parties represent differing goals and constituents. Whereas legislative bodies operate within government structures and are beholden to the electorate, tech giants must maintain a business model that drives profits for shareholders. As such, both governmental intervention and civil action are required to overcome challenges that powerful tech firms pose to society.

Tech executives argue that their role extends beyond their services, as they empower social mediators across all segments of contemporary society. Anyone with the privilege of internet access can speak to a global audience with greater ease than ever before. Under current legislation, companies can freely interpret the bounds of good faith content moderation, meaning they claim to be maintaining a healthy level of oversight on harmful content like hate speech, terrorist propaganda, and other forms of objectionable expression.

Tech companies efforts to justify their intentions would not be needed in the absence of doubters. For example, in 2018, YouTube evaded a lawsuit in which Prager University accused the company of censoring conservative content and having a political identity and viewpoint. Ultimately, the case was dismissed because YouTube does not qualify as a state actor. In other words, private entities have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, allowing them to make their own decisions about the content on their platforms. This case illustrates how online service providers do not have to be neutral or fact check. Even if they exhibit a strong desire to be neutral, this would be impossible, considering the subjective nature of objectionable content, wherein definitions vary based a countrys free speech laws.

Widespread concern regarding the political and social consequences of tech giants unfettered freedom has prompted legal investigations led by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and state-level prosecutors. However, many challenges stand in legislators way when deciding on the best legal course of action to govern online service providers.

For one, lawmakers usually struggle to penetrate the digital bubble of software and algorithms that are incomprehensible to most outsiders. Senators often display frustration when trying to get a straight answer from the executives being questioned in congressional hearings. Even if being vague allows these executives to protect their private intellectual property during public hearings, it is unlikely that lawmakers know enough about these companies behind-the-scenes content regulation procedures. Capitol Hill recently expressed concern over the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 and climate change on Facebook, subsequently demanding greater information about how the platform handles fact-checking, and if its size impedes this process. However, previous attempts suggest that many lawmakers are technologically inept.

Evelyn Doueks essay, The Rise of Content Cartels, poses a question that encapsulates the two main options considered by government bodies in response to internet giants power over free speech standards. Douek asks: Should platforms work together to ensure that the online ecosystem as a whole realizes these standards, or would society benefit more if it is every platform for itself?

Doueks every platform for itself option implies enacting stricter antitrust enforcement on these technology companies and promoting healthy competition levels. For instance, Facebook already differs from other social media platforms, like Twitter, due to its less aggressive approach for policing inflammatory comments and fact-checking. By increasing the number of players in the market, the industry may align itself with the type of moderation that is most palatable to consumers. However, this approach has numerous flaws. Considering no ideal moderation method has surfaced as of 2020, it is uncertain whether this is possible. Also, if online platforms have not broken any legitimate laws, then arbitrary exercise of antitrust enforcement can be seen as an abuse of power by the government, something the First Amendment is intended to protect private entities from.

The other option entails shared standards, which is arguably harder to put in place, as it requires amending or re-writing current communication and media laws. Mark Zuckerberg expressed his feeling of being caught in the polarity of the American political system, saying: The Trump administration has said we have censored too much content and Democrats and civil rights groups are saying that we arent taking down enough. The challenge lies in Facebooks and the governments ability to find a middle ground between protecting the First Amendment rights of citizens and policing disinformation. Still, whoever defines this middle ground may be subject to ideological bias themselves.

Mark Zuckerberg should listen to his employees and explain what the company will do if Donald Trump uses its platform to try to undermine the results of the presidential election. https://t.co/QfUAmdTL3t

Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2020

Aside from the government and other actors in positions of power, it is important to remember that members of the public also play an important role by engaging informed discussions about the influence of technology. More individuals need to consider exercising their freedom responsibly. People often view technology companies executives as genius figures because of their contributions to human society. However, such successes do not mean these individuals are messiahs, holding the answers to all of societys problems. Thus, the public needs to be critical of their actions and claims, and how they affect politics, the law, and free speech.

Whether there will soon be an overarching set of regulations to govern the technology sector remains uncertain, as industry players and legislative bodies have been unable to converge their respective expertise to tackle the current issues of content regulation. In the meantime, it is crucial to be critical of the way the internet currently functions, because each individual is inevitably part of the vision that tech giants set for the future.

Featured image: Youve Been Zucked by Annie Spratt, viaUnsplash.

Edited by Asher Laws

Continue reading here:

Online Platforms and the First Amendment Problem - The McGill International Review

Opinion: All cake designers deserve the same First Amendment freedoms – The Detroit News

Jake Warner Published 11:00 p.m. ET Aug. 24, 2020

An LGBT cake artist in Detroitwas recently asked to create a custom cake with a religious message criticizing same-sex marriage. After she declined to express that message, the customer alleged she had illegally discriminated against him based on his religion.

The situation presents an interesting reversal of roles to those faced by Christian cake artist Jack Phillips, and as we search for peace in our diverse and polarized nation, it also presents a perfect opportunity for us to ask: How do public accommodation laws interact with the First Amendment? And how should government apply those laws to protect the rights of all Americans?

After his greatly publicized victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, Phillips was immediately targeted by two more hostile legal actions. Both those actions spurred from a call that Phillipsshop had received on the same day that the Supreme Court decided to hear Phillipsfirst case.

April Anderson deserves the constitutional protections for creative designs for her cakes, Warner writes.(Photo: Courtesy of Good Cakes and Bakes)

Knowing that Phillips was a devout Christian, a local attorney and activist asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a custom blue and pink cake celebrating a gender transition. Turns out that this attorney had targeted Phillips before, sending him hurtful emails back in 2012 calling him a bigot and a hypocrite, and continued that harassment afterward, requesting a different custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana, Phillips believes.

When this activist asked for those custom cakes, Phillips respectfully declined because those cakes expressed messages Phillips disagreed with, and the attorney sued, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity, which is included within a protected status under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

As we look at the situation in Michigan, the parallels are remarkable. April Anderson is known in her local community for being an LGBT cake artist, and the customer was well aware of that when he targeted her with his request for a cake not just any cake, but a cake with a message that almost certainly would offend Andersons deepest beliefs. And like the Colorado attorney, when Anderson declined to create the Michigan customers requested cake, he alleged discrimination on the basis of a protected status (religion), tweeting, No more anti-Catholic discrimination. See you in court.

But neither April Anderson nor Jack Phillips engaged in illegal discrimination.

Phillips happily serves all people, and it appears Anderson does the same. They simply cannot create custom cake art celebrating messages that violate their core beliefs. Their decisions to not create these cakes were not based on who the customer was, but on what message the cakes expressed. And those message-based decisions are protected by the First Amendment.

Yet those who have opposed Phillips, like the American Civil Liberties Union, freely admit that Anderson was within the law. When you are asked to do a particular message, you might be crossing the line of what could be compelled speech, especially if its offensive, said Jay Kaplan, from the ACLU of Michigan.Indeed. And that same principle protects Phillips; the Constitution does not play favorites when it comes to speech.

As legal scholar Ryan T. Anderson has noted, public accommodation laws were created to protect ethnic and ideological minorities. These laws are supposed to be shields, not swords. And from a legal context, no state law can be used to undermine the fundamental rights of people like Phillips and Andersonthat are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Interestingly, the Constitution has become common discussion in pop culture since the Broadway spectacle Hamilton hit Disney+ last month. And the 10-dollar Founding Father has some wisdom that we would do well to remember when addressing this subject before us today.

In Federalist No. 1, the very first of his most prolific series of essays, Alexander Hamilton wrote, [W]e, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.

Hamilton had it right. Its time to put down the swords, respect each other despite our differencesand let creative professionals pursue their passions in peace. We dont have to choose between Jack Phillips and April Anderson.

The world is wide enough for both of them.

Jake Warner is legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. Follow ADF on Twitter:@AllianceDefends.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/08/25/opinion-all-cake-designers-deserve-same-first-amendment-freedoms/5622022002/

More here:

Opinion: All cake designers deserve the same First Amendment freedoms - The Detroit News