BitcoinATM Goes Live in California

Today, just over one month later, BitcoinATM is announcing its grand inauguration and launch press conference and reception. BitcoinATM will be unveiling its G6000 BitcoinATM at the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego, CA on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1pm.

Since announcing its technology, the company has received franchisee inquiries from 300 groups in over 30 countries spanning every continent on the globe except Antarctica. BitcoinATM is also in the process of closing a first round of fundraising expected to be in the $1-3 million range to handle growth and demand.

Max and Stacy are definitely invited.

There is a limited amount of space available for the afternoon gathering and a large amount of interest, so BitcoinATM asks all media and interested parties to send the company an e-mail to RSVP to justin@bitcoinatm.com. For more information on BitcoinATM you can go to www.bitcoinatm.com. Drinks will be provided by BitcoinATM.

Source: Max Keiser

Insecticide firms in secret bid to stop ban that could save bees

Bees are vital for pollination, and scientific studies have linked pesticides to huge losses in their numbers. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty

Europe is on the brink of a landmark ban on the world's most widely used insecticides, which have increasingly been linked to serious declines in bee numbers. Despite intense secret lobbying by British ministers and chemical companies against the ban, revealed in documents obtained by the Observer, a vote in Brussels on Monday is expected to lead to the suspension of the nerve agents.

Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. The plummeting numbers of pollinators in recent years has been blamed on disease, loss of habitat and, increasingly, the near ubiquitous use of neonicotinoid pesticides.

The prospect of a ban has prompted a fierce behind-the-scenes campaign. In a letter released to the Observer under freedom of information rules, the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, told the chemicals company Syngenta last week that he was "extremely disappointed" by the European commission's proposed ban. He said that "the UK has been very active" in opposing it and "our efforts will continue and intensify in the coming days".

Publicly, ministers have expressed concern for bees, with David Cameron saying: "If we do not look after our bee populations, very serious consequences will follow."

The chemical companies, which make billions from the products, have also lobbied hard, with Syngenta even threatening to sue individual European Union officials involved in publishing a report that found the pesticides posed an unacceptable risk to bees, according to documents seen by the Observer. The report, from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), led the commission to propose a two-year ban on three neonicotinoids. "EFSA has provided a strong, substantive and scientific case for the suspension," a commission spokesman said.

A series of high-profile scientific studies has linked neonicotinoids to huge losses in the number of queens produced and big increases in "disappeared" bees – those that fail to return from foraging trips. Pesticide manufacturers and UK ministers have argued that the science is inconclusive and that a ban would harm food production, but conservationists say harm stemming from dying pollinators is even greater.

"It's a landmark vote," said Joan Walley MP, chairwoman of parliament's green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, whose recent report on pollinators condemned the government's "extraordinary complacency". Walley said: "You have to have scientific evidence, but you also have to have the precautionary principle – that's the heart of this debate."

A ban has been supported by petitions signed by millions of people and Paterson has received 80,000 emails, an influx that he described as a "cyber-attack". "The impact of neonicotinoids on the massive demise of our bees is clear, yet Paterson seems unable to escape the haze of sloppy science and lobbying by powerful pesticide giants," said Iain Keith of the campaign group Avaaz. "Seventy per cent of British people want these poisons banned. Paterson must reconsider or send the bees to chemical Armageddon." Andrew Pendleton of Friends of the Earth said a ban would be "a historic moment in the fight to save our bees".

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "As the proposal currently stands we could not support an outright ban. We have always been clear that a healthy bee population is our top priority, that's why decisions need to be taken using the best possible scientific evidence and we want to work with the commission to achieve this. Any action taken must be proportionate and not have any unforeseen knock-on effects."

"This plan is motivated by a quite understandable desire to save the beleaguered bee and concern about a serious decline in other important pollinator species," said the government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, "but it is based on a misreading of the currently available evidence." He said the EC plan was a serious "mistake".

Julian Little, a spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, said: "Call me an optimist, but I still believe the commission will see sense. There is so much field evidence to demonstrate safe use [and] an increasing number of member states who reject the apparent drive towards museum agriculture in the European Union." However, Bulgaria is the only nation known to have changed its voting intention and it will reverse its opposition.

The chemical industry has mounted an increasingly desperate lobbying effort against a ban on neonicotinoids, which have been in use for more than a decade. In March the top producers, Syngenta and Bayer, proposed a plan to support bee health, including planting more flowering margins around fields and monitoring for neonicotinoids.

However, the private lobbying began much earlier with a series of letters, obtained by Corporate Europe Observatory and given to the Observer, which were sent to commissioners in the summer of 2012, after France had proposed a unilateral ban. One Syngenta executive, mentioning in passing his recent lunch with Barack Obama, claimed that "a small group of activists and hobby bee-keepers" were behind that campaign for a ban. Another letter claims, without citing evidence, that the production of key crops would fall by "up to 40%".

At that time, the European Crop Protection Association – of which Syngenta and Bayer are members – welcomed the continuing EFSA evaluation. But in January, as the EFSA prepared to issue the damning verdict of its experts, the industry immediately turned on it. Syngenta's lawyers demanded last-minute changes to a press release to prevent "serious damage to the integrity of our product and reputation" and threatened legal action.

The EFSA stood its ground, prompting Syngenta to demand all documents, including handwritten ones, relating to the EFSA's decision and the names of individuals involved. A month later, it told EFSA officials it was considering the "identity of specific defendants" for possible court action. On a more conciliatory note, Syngenta told the EFSA it was considering "large-scale" bee-monitoring studies to "close data gaps", despite previous claims its product had been introduced only after "the most stringent regulatory work". Critics have condemned companies for keeping trial data secret.

A spokesman for Syngenta said: "No evidence from the field has ever been presented that these pesticides actually damage bee health, with the case against them resting on a few studies which identify some highly theoretical risks. Regardless of the outcome, we will continue our work with anyone who shares our goal of improving bee health, which is vital for sustainable agriculture as well as the future of our business."

In the first commission vote in March, 13 countries supported a ban, nine opposed it and five, including the UK and Germany, abstained, which meant there was not a sufficient majority for or against under voting rules, which give larger nations more votes. The result is likely to be repeated on Monday, meaning that the commission would step in and it is determined to see a ban in place.The chemical industry has warned that a ban on neonicotinoids would lead to the return of older, more harmful pesticides and crop losses. But campaigners point out that this has not happened during temporary suspensions in France, Italy and Germany and that the use of natural pest predators and crop rotation can tackle problems.

Professor David Goulson, a bee expert at the University of Sussex whose research has found harmful effects from neonicotinoids, said: "There is now a very substantial body of scientific evidence suggesting that this class of insecticides is impacting on health of wild bees, and perhaps other wildlife too. It is time for the EU's politicians to take a responsible position and support this ban."

Source: The Guardian

California Proposes Soda Tax to Defray Costs of Obesity and Dental Disease

California Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, proposes a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks. KGO-TVreports that his controversial bill is currently on its way to the senate's Health Committee for discussion.

How much more expensive would a can of soda be if the tax goes into effect?

The price of each can of sweetened soda would increase by 12 cents.

Which types of beverages will this law affect?

As noted in SB-622, this tax affects all "bottled sweetened beverages" as well as concentrates if they contain more than 25 calories for every 12 ounces of content. Fruit and vegetable juices may also be affected when their natural fruit or vegetable content falls below 50 percent. Furthermore, this tax affects sports drinks, energy drinks and sweetened iced teas.

Which beverages are exempted?

Among the exemptions are concentrates of milk products and those containing "more than 50 percent natural fruit juice" or natural vegetables juice. A provision to exempt plant protein sources as a concentrate was taken out by lawmakers.

What happens to the money the state collects because of the California soda tax?

Monning proposes the creation of a "Children's Health Promotion Fund." The money may be spent on activities that prevent childhood obesity statewide. Examples include educational materials, policy making and public health campaigns. Some of the money would also benefit school nutrition programs, hiring of and training for physical education teachers and the construction of school facilities for recreational activities.

How did local soda tax proposals do in the past?

As noted by the Richmond Confidential, the Richmond city council in May 2012 voted 5-2 in favor of putting a soda tax proposal on the ballot. Council member Jeff Ritterman was instrumental in pushing this legislation. He intended to use the collected funds to "provide adequate sports fields and teams for our children as well as programs that fight against childhood obesity." The Contra Costa Times reported last November that 66.9 percent of voters rejected his soda tax.

Is there statewide voter approval for a one-cent soda tax?

The Bay Area News Group asserts that while only 40 percent of voters may actually support this tax, pollsters were successful in increasing this number to 68 percent when pointing out that the collected funds would benefit school nutrition programs. Health Day has a different set of poll numbers. Citing a Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll, this news outlet claims that about 58 percent of respondents oppose a soda tax.

What do critics say?

As noted by UT San Diego, critics of the soda tax state that there is no proof that collecting an additional tax will actually fight obesity. Claiming that this new tax will only serve to "send more money to Sacramento," critics remind Californians that an overconsumption of calories causes obesity, not sugary soft drinks.

Sylvia Cochran is a Los Angeles area resident with a firm finger on the pulse of California politics. Talk radio junkie, community volunteer and politically independent, she scrutinizes the good and the bad from both sides of the political aisle.

Source: Yahoo

Who is this woman, and why was she interviewed by CNN during 3 different major events? Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon Bombing, and Boston Shootout

FBI Documents Shine Light on Clandestine Cellphone Tracking Tool

What's more dangerous: a real stingray or the FBI's Stingray tool?

The FBI calls it a “sensitive investigative technique” that it wants to keep secret. But newly released documents that shed light on the bureau’s use of a controversial cellphone tracking technology called the “Stingray” have prompted fresh questions over the legality of the spy tool.

Functioning as a so-called “cell-site simulator,” the Stingray is a sophisticated portable surveillance device. The equipment is designed to send out a powerful signal that covertly dupes phones within a specific area into hopping onto a fake network. The feds say they use them to target specific groups or individuals and help track the movements of suspects in real time, not to intercept communications. But by design Stingrays, sometimes called “IMSI catchers,” collaterally gather data from innocent bystanders’ phones and can interrupt phone users’ service—which critics say violates a federal communications law.

The FBI has maintained that its legal footing here is firm. Now, though, internal documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, reveal the bureau appears well aware its use of the snooping gear is in dubious territory. Two heavily redacted sets of files released last month show internal Justice Department guidance that relates to the use of the cell tracking equipment, with repeated references to a crucial section of the Communications Act which outlines how “interference” with communication signals is prohibited. 

It’s a small but significant detail. Why? Because it demonstrates that “there are clearly concerns, even within the agency, that the use of Stingray technology might be inconsistent with current regulations,” says EPIC attorney Alan Butler. “I don't know how the DOJ justifies the use of Stingrays given the limitations of the Communications Act prohibition.”

The FBI declined a request to comment on specific questions related to the legality of Stingrays, as it says the matter remains in litigation. Spokesman Christopher Allen told me by email that “in general the FBI cautions against drawing conclusions from redacted FOIA documents.”

A potential legal conflict, however, is not all the documents draw attention to. They disclose that the feds have procedures in place for loaning electronic surveillance devices (like the Stingray) to state police. This suggests the technology may have been used in cases across the United States, in line with a stellar investigation by LA Weekly last year, which reported that state cops in California, Florida, Texas, and Arizona had obtained Stingrays. More still, the trove offers a rare hint at the circumstances in which Stingrays are deployed. “Violent Gang Safe Street Task Forces Legal Issues" is the title of one newly released set of FBI presentation slides related to tracking tactics.

It’s likely that in the months ahead, a few more interesting nuggets of information will emerge. The FBI has told EPIC that it holds a mammoth 25,000 pages of documents that relate to Stingray tools, about 6,000 of which are classified. The Feds have been drip-releasing the documents month by month, and so far there have been four batches containing between 27 and 184 pages each. Though most of the contents—even paragraphs showing how the FBI is interpreting the law—have been heavy-handedly redacted, several eyebrow-raising details have made it through the cut. As I reported back in October, a previous release revealed the Feds have an internal manual called “GSM cellphone tracking for dummies.”

The release of the documents was first prompted last year after EPIC launched a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The suit was triggered after it emerged during a court case in 2011 that the feds had used a cell-site simulator in order to track down a suspect, with one agent admitting in an affidavit that the tool collaterally swept up data on “innocent, non-target devices” (U.S. v. Rigmaiden). The government has previously argued that tools like the Stingray are permissible without a search warrant—outside the search and seizure protections offered by the Fourth Amendment—because they use them to gather location data, not the content of communications. The Justice Department says cellphone users have no reasonable expectation of privacy over their location data—a claim that has incensed privacy and civil liberties groups.

Source: Future Tense

Senate Committee Rejects CISPA Due to Privacy Concerns

Last week the alarm was raised when the House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act or CISPA, which would essentially allow a free flow of information between private companies and the federal government. Fears were heightened, as those of us who live our lives online had some serious concerns about how this bill would destroy our right to privacy by allowing the government to have access to our private account information without our knowledge. After a seemingly endless barrage of tweets and status updates urging individuals to get angry, the bill was shelved today the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. It will mostly likely take months for a new cyber security bill to be drafted.

While Congress is adamant that file sharing is an integral and indeed crucial part of cyber security, it remains difficult, if not impossible for law makers to draft legislative language allowing for us to catch would be hackers without encroaching on individual privacy rights. Currently top American intelligence officials are warning that our nation is experiencing a greater threat from hackers than we are from traditional terrorists. This combined with more and more corporations lobbying for tougher anti-piracy legislation means that our elected officials are going to have to solve this conundrum sooner rather than later.

A large reason for the failure of CISPA to make it to a floor vote on the Senate was the threat of a veto by President Obama if the bill reached his desk. While the President should be keeping the issue of national security at the forefront of his mind, it's refreshing to think that in his second term Barack Obama is still focusing on the rights of the people. With legislation involving the internet having far more support among Republicans than Democrats I would not be surprised if the House waited a few more years before reattempting this legislation in the hopes that the odds will be more in their favor. Of course at the same time all it would take is one major cyber attack for the tides to turn in support of an online Big Brother.

Source: In the Capital

Bitcoin: world's fastest growing currency migrates off the internet - video

In Kreuzberg, Berlin, virtual currency Bitcoin has expanded off the internet to become a favoured medium of exchange in real shops and bars. Joerg Platzer, the owner of bar Room 77 is helping to establish what he believes to be the world's first Bitcoin local economy