| WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ANONYMOUS GETS A BANK? Dominic Basulto on May 18, 2011, 9:34 PM The same people who brought you Wikileaks are back, and this time, they've created a virtual currency called Bitcoin that could destabilize the entire global financial system. Bitcoin is an open-source virtual currency generated by a computer algorithm that is completely beyond the reach of financial intermediaries, central banks and national tax collectors. Bitcoins could be used to purchase anything, at any time, from anyone in the world, in a transaction process that it is almost completely frictionless. Yes, that's right, the hacktivists now have a virtual currency that's untraceable, unhackable, and completely Anonymous. And that's where things start to get interesting. Veteran tech guru Jason Calacanis recently called Bitcoin the most dangerous open source project he's ever seen. TIME suggested that Bitcoin might be able to bring national governments and global financial institutions to their knees. You see, Bitcoin is as much a political statement as it is a virtual currency. If you think there's a shadow banking system now, wait a few more months. The political part is that, unlike other virtual currencies like Facebook Credits (used to buy virtual sock puppets for your friends), Bitcoins are globally transferrable across borders, making them the perfect instrument to finance any cause or any activity -- even if it's banned by a sovereign government. You don't need a banking or trading account to buy and trade Bitcoins - all you need is a laptop. They're like bearer bonds combined with the uber-privacy of a Swiss bank account, mixed together with a hacker secret sauce that stores them as 1's and 0's on your computer. They're "regulated" (to use the term lightly) by distributed computers around the world. Most significantly, Bitcoins can not be frozen or blocked or taxed or seized. Think back to the very peak of the Wikileaks Affair, when financial institutions were blocking payments to and from bank accounts controlled by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. This then precipitated a wave of hacktivist attacks on financial institutions ranging from Bank of America to Mastercard to Visa. Anybody who attempted to stop Wikileaks was slammed with massive denial-of-service attacks that had people seriously concerned about the fate of the world's financial system. That was just the amuse-bouche. Theoretically, you could start generating Bitcoins right now on your laptop by putting a sophisticated computer algorithm to work. (Watch this video segment from Jason Calacanis for all the details) Right now, there are six million Bitcoins in circulation, trading at an average value of $6.70 each. $40 million is a lot of money, but a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. After all, trillions of dollars trade hands each day in the spot FX markets. However, remember that computer algorithm I mentioned earlier? Well, it controls the value of all those Bitcoins in circulation. The greater the demand, the higher the value of the Bitcoins. Within years, we could be talking about billions of dollars' worth of Bitcoins in circulation. Money might not grow on trees, but now it grows on your laptop. There are so many fascinating angles to this that even the digitally-savvy folks at Boing Boing have had a hard time wrapping their heads around Bitcoin. Quite frankly, it sounds like something out of a James Bond movie: a group of shadowy individuals attempt to bring the world's financial system to its knees. The founder of the Bitcoin open source project, Satoshi Nakamoto, hasn't been heard from in months, but other leaders of the open source movement have taken over. (People really aren't sure if a Satoshi Nakamoto really exists -- he's more like a Keyser Soze figure right now). What's fascinating is that anybody can download an 8-page PDF explaining this P2P virtual currency system and judge for themselves if it makes sense -- just be prepared to work through some differential calculus and probability theory. Can any government do anything about Bitcoin? Well, the hacktivists like to point to the example of P2P distributed systems like Bit Torrent or The Pirate Bay. What happened then? Nobody has been able to consistently shut them down. So... back to our original question: What happens when Anonymous gets a bank? Well, it's worth re-reading the final chapter of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, where Swedish hacker Lisbeth Salander single-handedly re-routes hundreds of millions of dollars around the world and brings down a huge billion dollar corporation, all without leaving an electronic fingerprint. Truth, it seems, may soon be stranger than fiction. Tags: anonymous, Bitcoin, hacker, hacktivist, p2p, virtualcurrency, Wikileak Established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 1, 2002, it's mandated to prosecute individuals for genocide and aggression, as well as crimes or war and against humanity. Much earlier, the UN Charter was ...
 ICC warns Libya regime against covering up possible war crimes Julia Zebley at 1:58 PM ET
[JURIST] The International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo[official websites] declared on Wednesday that any authority attempting to cover up crimes in Libya will be held accountable. In a letter sent to Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeidi [AFP report], Ocampo warned against diplomats covering up crimes for Libyan leaderMummar Gaddafi [BBC profile; JURIST news archive]. Further, Ocampo alleged that cover-ups in Libya go so far that any trace of a crime is destroyed [Middle East Online report]. Ocampo announced Monday that he is seeking arrest warrants [JURIST report] for Gaddafi and two others in his "inner circle" on charges of crimes against humanity. Libya's government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim dismissed this, stating the court has no jurisdiction over Tripoli and denied that any war crimes had occurred. Ocampo had previously said that his office was planning to seek five arrest warrants [JURIST report] in connection with Gaddafi's administration. He indicated that there was strong evidence of Gaddafi's involvement in various crimes against humanity, including the shooting of civilians, massive arrests, torture and forced disappearances. Ocampo revealed in April that his office had uncovered evidence [JURIST report] that Gaddafi planned to attack civilians to forestall regime-toppling revolution. Ocampo indicated that the plans were made in response to the conflicts in Tunisia and Egypt and included shooting civilians. In March, Ocampo told the press that he was 100 percent certain his office would bring charges [JURIST report] against Gaddafi. Also in March, the ICC launched a probe into allegations of crimes against humanity [JURIST report] by the Libyan government. Moses Kaput -- Rightwing Ten Commandments To Serve Looming Theocracy OpEdNews Rightwing scholars brag how Christianity answers precisely to immutable economics of Milton Friedman (what, another Jewish prophet?). Which says a great deal methinks about both paradigms. The Bible stands foursquare alongside powerful CEOs, . The Unspoken Mission: The Deliberate Disintegration of America. OpEdNews It is led by anti-American traitors and war criminals who would prefer America to be a dictatorship than a free society. This phase speaks for itself. Professor Peter Dale Scott and others have written about the plan by Dick Cheney and the treasonous ... http://www.salon.com/news/middle_east/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/16/obama_outreach_middle_east MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011 08:30 ET What the Muslim world needs to hear from Obama BY NADIA HIJAB Barack Obama's decision to deliver a speech The speech, planned for a while, is now the day before Obama meets Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom relations have been cool since the two squared off over Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the president blinked first. Perhaps the decision on timing was made to preempt Netanyahu’s effort to set the terms of the debate. The Israeli leader clearly aims to flood the nation with Israel’s message when he addresses a joint meeting of Congress on May 24 as well as the annual conference of AIPAC. This, according to members of Netanyahu’s Likud party quoted in Haaretz The timing of the news of George Mitchell's resignation as Obama's Middle East envoy is also puzzling. Mitchell actually left in early April, but the announcement was only made Friday, and the resignation takes effect the day Obama is due to meet Netanyahu. What stark, surely unintentional, symbolism of the failure of U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict since the first Bush administration. That policy has been based on two faulty foundations: That a people living under occupation can negotiate the terms of freedom with an occupying military force that controls everything from movement (including that of the Palestinian negotiators themselves), to tax revenues, to the population registry; and that the U.S. can still insist on being the lead mediator even as it sustains Israel’s occupation through military aid and diplomatic cover. The steep trajectory of failure is spotlighted by the choice of venue for the president’s speech. What a contrast Obama's visit to the State Department on Thursday will be to the second day of his presidency, when he used that same backdrop to appoint Mitchell as his envoy amidst soaring global hopes of a different approach. And what a far cry the State Department setting is from the "timeless city of Cairo," as Obama described it in the opening of his warmly welcomed first speech to the Arab and Muslim worlds in June 2009. Those great expectations were soon deflated. A poll Finally, what is the purpose of the speech? There is no shortage of issues to address, including the U.S. position on the contours of a final Middle East settlement, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and the Arab Spring. But it is hard to see what Obama could say to make a difference to the region's perceptions of U.S. policy -- if the speech is indeed intended for foreign rather than domestic consumption. The Arab Spring? Viewed from the Arab street, the administration supported the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes and only switched when the people’s determination to stay the course became clear. The West is seen to serve its own agenda, as illustrated by the conflicting responses to Libya, where it is taking military action against the dictatorship, and Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered and where the regime has had a free hand against citizens demanding rights and dignity. And there are other gaps between what the U.S. says and what it does: reluctance to fully withdraw from Iraq, including "trainers," contractors, and bases; ramping up the war in Afghanistan; and backtracking on closing Guantanamo. The killing of Bin Laden? Had this taken place in the heat of war soon after the attacks of September 11, the region’s sympathies would have been with the U.S. Now, the prevailing view is summed up by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader interviewed in The Washington Post A U.S. vision of Middle East peace? Administration officials have continued to insist -- despite all the evidence to the contrary -- that only direct talks will bring peace. They have opposed the Palestinian leadership's plan to seek full membership of the United Nations, even though they have left it no other recourse. Obama faces a yawning credibility gap on Middle East peace. If he was unwilling to pressure Israel to even freeze settlements, few will believe he can swing an actual withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers at a time when he is actively seeking re-election. And people will continue to hold America responsible for Israel’s actions, knowing full well Israel could not sustain its occupation were it not for U.S. military aid and diplomatic cover. What, then, are Obama’s options? Since he has decided to speak, he could consider three things. Avoiding any hint of arrogance by recognizing America's minimal role in supporting the Arab uprisings and its major role in sustaining dictatorship. Announcing a credible timeline of concrete measures for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, trainers, contractors, and bases from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the region. And providing evidence of a willingness and ability to deliver on Middle East peace and stop subsidizing Israel’s occupation. Anything else will be greeted with disdain by peoples now determined to take their destiny into their own hands. Nadia Hijab is Co-Director of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network |
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Posted by ed. dickau at 8:23 PM