Month: May 2019

China’s Mass Surveillance App Hacked; Code Reveals Specific Criteria For Illegal Oppression

Human Rights Watch got their hands on an app used by Chinese authorities in the western Xinjiang region to surveil, track and categorize the entire local population – particularly the 13 million or so Turkic Muslims subject to heightened scrutiny, of which around one million are thought to live in ‘reeducation’ camps. 

By “reverse engineering” the code in the “Integrated Joint Operations Platform” (IJOP) app, HRW was able to identify the exact criteria authorities rely on to ‘maintain social order.’ Of note, IJOP is “central to a larger ecosystem of social monitoring and control in the region,” and similar to systems being deployed throughout the entire country. 

The platform targets 36 types of people for data collection, from those who have “collected money or materials for mosques with enthusiasm,” to people who stop using smartphones. 

[A]uthorities are collecting massive amounts of personal information—from the color of a person’s car to their height down to the precise centimeter—and feeding it into the IJOP central system, linking that data to the person’s national identification card number. Our analysis also shows that Xinjiang authorities consider many forms of lawful, everyday, non-violent behavior—such as “not socializing with neighbors, often avoiding using the front door”—as suspicious. The app also labels the use of 51 network tools as suspicious, including many Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and encrypted communication tools, such as WhatsApp and Viber. –Human Rights Watch

Another method of tracking is the “Four Associations”

The IJOP app suggests Xinjiang authorities track people’s personal relationships and consider broad categories of relationship problematic. One category of problematic relationships is called “Four Associations” (四关联), which the source code suggests refers to people who are “linked to the clues of cases” (关联案件线索), people “linked to those on the run” (关联在逃人员), people “linked to those abroad” (关联境外人员), and people “linked to those who are being especially watched” (关联关注人员). –HRW

*An extremely detailed look at the data collected and how the app works can be found in the actual report. 

HRW notes that “Many—perhaps all—of the mass surveillance practices described in this report appear to be contrary to Chinese law, and also violate internationally guaranteed rights to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and freedom of association and movement. “Their impact on other rights, such as freedom of expression and religion, is profound,” according to the report. 

Here’s what happens when ‘irregularities’ are detected:

When IJOP detects a deviation from normal parameters, such as when a person uses a phone not registered to them, or when they use more electricity than what would be considered “normal,” or when they travel to an unauthorized area without police permission, the system flags them as “micro-clues” which authorities use to gauge the level of suspicion a citizen should fall under. 

A checkpoint in Turpan, Xinjiang. Some of Xinjiang’s checkpoints are equipped with special machines that, in addition to recognizing people through their ID cards or facial recognition, are also vacuuming up people’s identifying information from their electronic devices. 
 © 2018 Darren Byler

IJOP also monitors personal relationships – some of which are deemed inherently suspicious, such as relatives who have obtained new phone numbers or who maintain foreign links. 

Chinese authorities justify the surveillance as a means to fight terrorism. To that end, IJOP checks for terrorist content and “violent audio-viusual content” when surveilling phones and software. It also flags “adherents of Wahhabism,” the ultra-conservative form of Islam accused of being a “source of global terrorism.” 

A former Xinjiang resident told Human Rights Watch a week after he was released from arbitrary detention: “I was entering a mall, and an orange alarm went off.” The police came and took him to a police station. “I said to them, ‘I was in a detention center and you guys released me because I was innocent.’… The police told me, ‘Just don’t go to any public places.’… I said, ‘What do I do now? Just stay home?’ He said, ‘Yes, that’s better than this, right?’” –Human Rights Watch

The IJOP system was developed by a major-state owned military contractor – the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC). The app itself was developed by Hebei Far East Communication System Engineering Company (HBFEC), a company that, at the time of the app’s development, was fully owned by CETC. 

CETC’s “three-dimensional portrait and integrated data doors” – special machines that are used in some of Xinjiang’s checkpoints to vacuum up people’s identifying information from their electronic devices. This is placed at the entrance to the Aq Mosque, in Urumqi, 2018. 
 Credit: Joanne Smith Finley

Meanwhile, under the broader “Strike Hard Campaign,“ authorities in Xinjiang are also collecting “biometrics, including DNA samples, fingerprints, iris scans, and blood types of all residents in the region ages 12 to 65,” according to the report, which adds that “the authorities require residents to give voice samples when they apply for passports.“

The Strike Hard Campaign has shown complete disregard for the rights of Turkic Muslims to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In Xinjiang, authorities have created a system that considers individuals suspicious based on broad and dubious criteria, and then generates lists of people to be evaluated by officials for detention. Official documents state that individuals “who ought to be taken, should be taken,” suggesting the goal is to maximize the number of people they find “untrustworthy” in detention. Such people are then subjected to police interrogation without basic procedural protections. They have no right to legal counsel, and some are subjected to torture and mistreatment, for which they have no effective redress, as we have documented in our September 2018 report. The result is Chinese authorities, bolstered by technology, arbitrarily and indefinitely detaining Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang en masse for actions and behavior that are not crimes under Chinese law.

Read the entire report from Human Rights Watch here. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Jfw9BV Tyler Durden

Massage Parlor Surveillance Videos Can’t Be Used in Court, Says Florida Judge: Reason Roundup

Florida police failed to exhaust more low-key options and to protect the privacy of non-suspects when secretly recording surveillance video inside Martin County massage parlors. That’s the verdict of Florida Judge Kathleen Roberts, whose six-page decision on the matter was delivered yesterday.

To be legal and admissible, “it would have required that when it was determined that no illegal activity was happening in the massage room, the monitoring or recording was turned off when the client began to dress after the massage was concluded,” said the decision. But “at no time was any effort made to stop the monitoring or recording at any point to protect the innocent person who happened to enter an area covered by a camera.”

The Martin County massage-business stings were conducted in conjunction with stings in several nearby counties, including the Palm Beach County bust that led to solicitation of prostitution charges for Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

Kraft and other men charged with solicitation have been challenging the use of “sneak and peak” warrants (you know, the kind authorized under the PATRIOT Act to stop terrorism) to install secret video cameras in massage rooms, where police filmed clients undressing, getting massaged, and in some cases allegedly paying for sexual services. Workers at these businesses are also suing over the surveillance, as are customers of the spas who simply received regular massage services and weren’t arrested for any funny business.

To the disappointment of some media outlets, a judge last week temporarily blocked the public release of surveillance video from the Palm Beach spas. A final decision is still pending.

The decision from Judge Roberts only applies to surveillance at Martin County spas.

“We’re elated that the rule of law triumphs over a flashy press conference,” says Richard Kibbey, who represents four people arrested in the Martin County stings, according to TCPalm.com.

At the initial press conferences, police portrayed themselves as the heroic foilers of an international sex trafficking ring. It later came out that they had spent more than half a year getting massages from these alleged sex slaves before arresting them on felony prostitution charges—and charging no one with human trafficking.

In her decision, Roberts noted that no effort had been made to differentiate between illegal and legal activity being recorded. “The innocent client was treated the same by law enforcement as the criminal element they sought to capture,” she wrote, ordering that the video footage be suppressed in court.

State prosecutors say they intend to appeal the ruling.

FREE MINDS

Rep. Devin Nunes has now filed several frivolous lawsuits against social media users and a local newspaper who he claims have defamed him. The California Republican “done everything an uber-conservative is supposed to do to successfully sue his hometown newspaper and Twitter trolls,” including “immediately alert[ing] Fox News to the developments and then [going] on Sean Hannity to shout about his victimhood,” quips Talking Points Memo. One thing Nunes hasn’t done so far? Actually served the defendants with notice that they’re being sued. Whoops.

FREE MARKETS

Bad news for the “gig economy” and so much more:

QUICK HITS

  • Shocking, we know:

 

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2GZTXrV
via IFTTT

Buchanan: Let Venezuela Decide Its Own Destiny

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review,

“Who would be free themselves must strike the blow…

By their right arms the conquest must be wrought.”

So wrote Lord Byron of Greece’s war of independence against the Turks, though the famed British poet would ignore his own counsel and die just days after arriving in Greece to join the struggle.

Yet Byron’s advice is the wise course for the United States, and for the people of Venezuela who seek to free their country of the grip of the incompetent and dictatorial regime of Nicolas Maduro.

Let the Venezuelans decide their own destiny, as did we.

As of today, Caracas seems to be in something of a standoff.

Opposition leader Juan Guaido, recognized by the U.S. and 50 other nations as president, has failed to persuade the army to abandon Maduro.

Yet he can still muster larger crowds in the streets of Caracas to demand the ouster of Maduro than Maduro can call out to stand by his regime.

Tuesday and Wednesday, Guaido announced that the regime’s final hour was at hand. But by midweek, the army’s leaders, including the minister of defense, still stood with Maduro.

Guaido’s opportunity seems to have passed by, at least for the moment. Maduro remains in power, though his generals, weighing the odds, have apparently been negotiating in secret with Guaido.

The Trump administration has backed Guaido, only to see him fail twice now at taking power.

The White House backed the plan in February to breach Venezuela’s borders with truckloads of food and medicine, counting on the army not to use force to block the trucks.

Vice President Mike Pence traveled to the border.

But Guaido and the Americans miscalculated. The army stood by Maduro. The trucks were kept out.

This week, when Guaido called out the crowds again to bring the strongman down, the White House went all in. President Donald Trump, Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton all tweeted support for the uprising.

But by Thursday, it was again clear that no matter what Washington had been told and anticipated, the army remained loyal to Maduro.

Frustrated, exasperated, appearing at once bellicose and impotent, Washington has now begun to bluster about military intervention.

“All options are on the table,” says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. Presumably that includes the 82nd Airborne.

“While a peaceful solution is desirable, military action is possible,” said Pompeo. “If that’s what required, that’s what the United States will do.”

“All options are open,” says Bolton. “We want a peaceful transfer of power. But we are not going to see Guaido mistreated by this regime.”

Clearly, Juan Guaido is our man in Caracas.

Bolton also had strong words for Vladimir Putin:

“(T)his is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians should be interfering. This was a mistake on their part.”

“The brutal repression of the Venezuelan people must end, and it must end soon,” said Trump.

“People are starving. They have no food; they have no water. And this was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Yet Trump is reportedly reluctant to intervene. Let us hope that his anti-interventionist impulses guide his decisions. Venezuela’s future is not ours to decide.

This civil conflict is not our war. We have not been attacked. Not only is there no justification for U.S. military intervention, but also any arrival of U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil could turn into yet another 21st-century strategic debacle.

There could be again Americans killing and dying in a country where no vital interest was imperiled, no matter how obnoxious the regime.

There is no Tiananmen Square slaughter, no massive human rights violations going on in Venezuela to justify military intervention. Indeed, there appears to be a conscious effort on the part of Maduro to minimize casualties and bloodshed, and the consequences they could bring.

Troops are not firing indiscriminately on protestors, though rock-throwers in the streets are provoking the soldiers. Planeloads of Russian or Cuban troops are not pouring into the country.

U.S. intervention in a nation of 30 million people, with an army of scores of thousands of troops, would enable Maduro to cast himself in the role of martyr of Yankee imperialism.

Finally, time is on our side, not Maduro’s.

The Venezuelan economy, one of the richest in the hemisphere owing to the world’s largest oil resources, is now in shambles. Some 3 million people, 1 in every 10 Venezuelans, have fled the disaster that Maduro and his mentor Hugo Chavez created.

The currency is sinking to Weimar levels. Oil exports are falling. Shortages of food and medicine are spreading. Power blackouts have been reported. It is difficult to foresee any turnaround the Maduro regime can execute to revive the economy or prevent the continued exodus of its people. Most of the nations of Latin America are with us and against Maduro.

Venezuela’s situation is not sustainable. Let the fate of the Marxist Socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro be decided by the people of Venezuela.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2GZONfx Tyler Durden

McConnell and Chafetz on Trump’s Resistance to Congressional Oversight

Stanford law professor (and former federal judge) Michael McConnell had a Washington Post op-ed this week suggesting that many critics are over-reacting to the Trump Administration’s refusal to cooperate with Congressional investigations. It begins:

Never before have so many congressional committees issued so many subpoenas demanding documents and testimony from so many executive-branch officials, with so little attempt at negotiation or accommodation. President Trump says he will invoke executive privilege on “all” of them. Attorney General William P. Barr balks at appearing before a House committee to discuss the Mueller report without changes in the format. Democrats threaten impeachment, and solemn commentators proclaim that Trump’s refusal to comply subverts America’s constitutional system of checks and balances.

How quickly Washington forgets — when it is convenient. Trump is not the first president to resist congressional investigation of the inner workings of his administration, and Barr is not the first Cabinet officer to negotiate the terms of his appearance before a committee. In fact, the responses are unremarkable.

As Professor McConnell notes, prior administrations have often been quite uncooperative with legislative oversight committees, going all the way back to the Washington Administration. Moreover, the refusal to cooperate has sometimes provoked a stern response, as when the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate adequately with the “Fast and Furious” probe (and Holder’s not the only one, as this CRS report discusses).

Professor McConnell concludes:

What does this history tell us? That disputes over congressional demands for documents and testimony are as old as the republic. Congresses demand; presidents resist. Generally, after a political tussle the two sides meet somewhere in the middle. As a leading scholar of the subject, Cornell law professor Josh Chafetz, has written, “most disputes between the executive and legislative branches over information have historically been settled by negotiation and accommodation.”

This process cannot take place if one side assumes that it has unilateral authority to demand whatever it wishes and that any delay or resistance from the other branch is categorically illegitimate. Trump should abandon his attempt to defy “all subpoenas,” but the House should recognize that the executive is an equal branch of government with constitutional privileges of its own. For a president to assert the rights of his office, as almost every president has done, is neither blameworthy nor impeachable.

Professor Chafetz, for his part, has a different take, as he noted in this Twitter thread. In Professor Chafetz’s view, the difference between the Trump Administration’s behavior and that of prior administrations is that, in the past, resistance to congressional oversight has usually focused on specific requests for specific information about specific matters, such as the Bush Administration’s decision to fire multiple U.S. Attorneys or the Obama Administration’s handling of the”Fast & Furious” scandal. Here, however, the Trump Administration appears to be resisting oversight across the board. This, according to Professor Chafetz is “different not just in degree but in kind.”

It’s not a claim that Congress doesn’t deserve access to some particular information; it’s a claim that Congress doesn’t deserve access to any information.”

That, in turn, amounts to a claim that Congress has no legitimate oversight role. And that claim is radically different from the claim that some specific piece of information is privileged.

And here’s the kicker from Professor Chafetz:

To my mind, denying that Congress has any role whatsoever in overseeing the executive ought to be understood as an impeachable offense.

Indeed, it is the prospect of potential impeachment proceedings, in part, which induces executive officials to cooperate with congressional investigations in the first place. As a general matter, the White House doesn’t turn over documents just to be nice, but because there is an implicit threat of potential escalation and sanction — ultimately impeachment itself — if legislative investigation is unduly obstructed.

Although Professor McConnell is not on Twitter, he did send a response to Professor Chafetz, which I am posting with Professor McConnell’s permission.

1.       I agree with you that Trump’s statement that he would defy “all subpoena” is overbroad, which is why the conclusory paragraph of my op-ed stated that “Trump should abandon his attempt to defy ‘all subpoenas.'” (I do not agree with you that overbroad claims, unaccompanied by action, are impeachable offenses.)

2.       Mr. Trump has the self-destructive tendency to deliver blunderbuss declarations, which are quickly abandoned or modified. That is the way I interpret his “no subpoenas” tweet.

3.       Already, two Trump administration officials (Barr and Kline) have testified in response to congressional demands, and Barr has agreed to testify in the House if the House committee will employ the ordinary procedures used for cabinet officials. “Apparently, “defy all subpoenas” means “comply with some of them.”

4.       The Supreme Court has held that the content of communications between the President and his aides is “presumptively privileged” on the sensible ground that Presidents need to be able to talk candidly before decided on acts. Trump waived that privilege for Mueller, but he has no obligation to do so with every House committee that asks.

5.       President Obama invoked executive privilege in the Fast & Furious investigation on the ground that any testimony regarding internal deliberations (even by low-level officials in a Department) would “inhibit the candor” of executive-branch deliberations and that “compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the Constitution.”

6.       I have not seen all the House committee demands for information, but quite a few of them seem to intrude on the deliberative process privilege, or others.

7.       Ordinary congressional oversight involves the administration of congressionally-authorized offices and authorities. (Fast and Furious is a clear example.) Many of the current investigations have to do with President Trump’s exercise of his own constitutionally-vested powers. These raise delicate unresolved questions of separation of powers.

8.       In the past, congressional committees have proceeded in a less precipitous fashion: asking for testimony first, narrowing their demands in response to legitimate executive branch concerns, and issuing subpoenas and threatening contempt only when discussions break down.

9.       Let us see how this plays out in the context of actual congressional demands and actual executive responses. There is too much hair-trigger talk of defiance on one side and contempt, sanctions, and impeachment on the other–and too little of the “negotiation and accommodation” your excellent scholarship has identified as characteristic of the past.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2IWRKjc
via IFTTT

Hispanic Unemployment Plunges To Record Low

While the aggregate U-3 US unemployment rate fell to its lowest since Dec 1969 (matching the initial jobless claims records), we suspect President Trump will be more glowingly positive about another data item that dropped this morning.

Hispanic unemployment has never been lower than right now…

We look forward to Nancy Pelosi’s explanation of why this is a bad thing, or fake news (perhaps she will use the fact that black unemployment was unchanged in April?).

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2LlxcDc Tyler Durden

McConnell and Chafetz on Trump’s Resistance to Congressional Oversight

Stanford law professor (and former federal judge) Michael McConnell had a Washington Post op-ed this week suggesting that many critics are over-reacting to the Trump Administration’s refusal to cooperate with Congressional investigations. It begins:

Never before have so many congressional committees issued so many subpoenas demanding documents and testimony from so many executive-branch officials, with so little attempt at negotiation or accommodation. President Trump says he will invoke executive privilege on “all” of them. Attorney General William P. Barr balks at appearing before a House committee to discuss the Mueller report without changes in the format. Democrats threaten impeachment, and solemn commentators proclaim that Trump’s refusal to comply subverts America’s constitutional system of checks and balances.

How quickly Washington forgets — when it is convenient. Trump is not the first president to resist congressional investigation of the inner workings of his administration, and Barr is not the first Cabinet officer to negotiate the terms of his appearance before a committee. In fact, the responses are unremarkable.

As Professor McConnell notes, prior administrations have often been quite uncooperative with legislative oversight committees, going all the way back to the Washington Administration. Moreover, the refusal to cooperate has sometimes provoked a stern response, as when the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate adequately with the “Fast and Furious” probe (and Holder’s not the only one, as this CRS report discusses).

Professor McConnell concludes:

What does this history tell us? That disputes over congressional demands for documents and testimony are as old as the republic. Congresses demand; presidents resist. Generally, after a political tussle the two sides meet somewhere in the middle. As a leading scholar of the subject, Cornell law professor Josh Chafetz, has written, “most disputes between the executive and legislative branches over information have historically been settled by negotiation and accommodation.”

This process cannot take place if one side assumes that it has unilateral authority to demand whatever it wishes and that any delay or resistance from the other branch is categorically illegitimate. Trump should abandon his attempt to defy “all subpoenas,” but the House should recognize that the executive is an equal branch of government with constitutional privileges of its own. For a president to assert the rights of his office, as almost every president has done, is neither blameworthy nor impeachable.

Professor Chafetz, for his part, has a different take, as he noted in this Twitter thread. In Professor Chafetz’s view, the difference between the Trump Administration’s behavior and that of prior administrations is that, in the past, resistance to congressional oversight has usually focused on specific requests for specific information about specific matters, such as the Bush Administration’s decision to fire multiple U.S. Attorneys or the Obama Administration’s handling of the”Fast & Furious” scandal. Here, however, the Trump Administration appears to be resisting oversight across the board. This, according to Professor Chafetz is “different not just in degree but in kind.”

It’s not a claim that Congress doesn’t deserve access to some particular information; it’s a claim that Congress doesn’t deserve access to any information.”

That, in turn, amounts to a claim that Congress has no legitimate oversight role. And that claim is radically different from the claim that some specific piece of information is privileged.

And here’s the kicker from Professor Chafetz:

To my mind, denying that Congress has any role whatsoever in overseeing the executive ought to be understood as an impeachable offense.

Indeed, it is the prospect of potential impeachment proceedings, in part, which induces executive officials to cooperate with congressional investigations in the first place. As a general matter, the White House doesn’t turn over documents just to be nice, but because there is an implicit threat of potential escalation and sanction — ultimately impeachment itself — if legislative investigation is unduly obstructed.

Although Professor McConnell is not on Twitter, he did send a response to Professor Chafetz, which I am posting with Professor McConnell’s permission.

1.       I agree with you that Trump’s statement that he would defy “all subpoena” is overbroad, which is why the conclusory paragraph of my op-ed stated that “Trump should abandon his attempt to defy ‘all subpoenas.'” (I do not agree with you that overbroad claims, unaccompanied by action, are impeachable offenses.)

2.       Mr. Trump has the self-destructive tendency to deliver blunderbuss declarations, which are quickly abandoned or modified. That is the way I interpret his “no subpoenas” tweet.

3.       Already, two Trump administration officials (Barr and Kline) have testified in response to congressional demands, and Barr has agreed to testify in the House if the House committee will employ the ordinary procedures used for cabinet officials. “Apparently, “defy all subpoenas” means “comply with some of them.”

4.       The Supreme Court has held that the content of communications between the President and his aides is “presumptively privileged” on the sensible ground that Presidents need to be able to talk candidly before decided on acts. Trump waived that privilege for Mueller, but he has no obligation to do so with every House committee that asks.

5.       President Obama invoked executive privilege in the Fast & Furious investigation on the ground that any testimony regarding internal deliberations (even by low-level officials in a Department) would “inhibit the candor” of executive-branch deliberations and that “compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the Constitution.”

6.       I have not seen all the House committee demands for information, but quite a few of them seem to intrude on the deliberative process privilege, or others.

7.       Ordinary congressional oversight involves the administration of congressionally-authorized offices and authorities. (Fast and Furious is a clear example.) Many of the current investigations have to do with President Trump’s exercise of his own constitutionally-vested powers. These raise delicate unresolved questions of separation of powers.

8.       In the past, congressional committees have proceeded in a less precipitous fashion: asking for testimony first, narrowing their demands in response to legitimate executive branch concerns, and issuing subpoenas and threatening contempt only when discussions break down.

9.       Let us see how this plays out in the context of actual congressional demands and actual executive responses. There is too much hair-trigger talk of defiance on one side and contempt, sanctions, and impeachment on the other–and too little of the “negotiation and accommodation” your excellent scholarship has identified as characteristic of the past.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2IWRKjc
via IFTTT

Trend Breaks – Pay Attention Here!

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Pay attention here, we just witnessed trend breaks on some index charts and these breaks are coming at a key time and could spell more trouble to come.

Speaking of key time, who says twitter trolls are good for nothing. If anything, they sometime can serve as contrarian sentiment checks. I sensed markets were reaching a potential turning point over the last few days as I got my usual “perma bear” hate trolling on twitter. I tend to get this a lot near key market pivot points.

I got the obsessive perma bear hate labels last year in the run-up to Lying Highs. Oddly enough I didn’t get any of the perma bear hate in December when markets were plunging 20%. And ironically I didn’t get perma bear hate when I was bullish in December. But once $SPX reached 2940 and they came back.

Yes trolls on twitter are rather selective and like to distort for their own reasons. It’s silly of course as objective readers actually know me not to be a perma bear. I can’t speak to the psychology and motivation of trolls on the internet. Perhaps they secretly love me lol, after all some have been dedicating years of their lives to trolling me. Look, I don’t have time for nonsense and hate by people who don’t know me and have never even met me.

Yes, I’m posting analyses that are critical of market structures, central banks, and macro structural issues. And I stand by my criticisms. I outline my rationale with facts and figures.

But if that makes me a perma bear I must be a terrible perma bear. I mean what kind of perma bear has any sort of bullish technical outlooks? (For examples see here, here, here, here, and here).

I put out some of my analytical work publicly. When I favor the short side I outline the rationale for that. When I favor the long side I outline my rationale for that. I outline risk levels, I share some of what I see in charts. Don’t like my rationale? Don’t read it. Don’t like me? Don’t follow me. Simple.

And yes there will be times when I’m wrong or I’m early. And there are lessons on being wrong and I’ve outlined them.

Indeed my philosophy on my work:

Take April. April has not been a great month for me. Had a great January, an ok February and March, but April has been a paint drying watching exercise. So what? Nobody ever experienced a drawdown?

Let the traders who’ve never had a challenging time in markets raise their hands and step forward.

Currently I’m on the record for not liking the bullish side while recognizing the upside risk and I’ve outlined my rationale for that.

Some of the charts I’ve posted pertain to wedge patterns. I’ve outlined that they can keep going and going until something breaks, then it gets interesting. And it may be getting interesting now.

Take $NDX:

That’s a clean break. Does that mean no more new highs? Not necessarily as we saw in August/September new highs were still squeezed out, but it’s a warning sign especially since this rally remains technically uncorrected. But without larger confirmations the Combustion case is not off the table yet.

$DJIA:

Uptrend broken, 2 failed attempts to get back above the January 2018 highs. One of the lower gaps filled today. That’s now the third rejection from this price zone and risks a major topping pattern.

$WLSH:

Another wedge break in context of a notable uncorrected chart with a failure to make new highs at this stage.

$SPX:

What a pattern. Also seeing a wedge break and a failure to sustain new highs. I’ve questioned the sustainability of new highs just this weekend in Get Real.

I guess that made me perma bear worthy. Oh it’s easy to criticize and hate on twitter. Especially when you don’t put out any analytical work of your own in front of tens of thousands of people. It’s easy to distort and be selective.

And it’s easy to hate on social media from the safety and comfort of your own home. A behavior most people wouldn’t engage in in real life for there would be consequences.

Khloe Kardashian actually had a good point on that the other day:

“Social media has made many of you comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the mouth for it”.

We live in a complex diverse world. We have all to decide how we want to spend our limited time.

I have no time, desire or interest in engaging in perma narratives or hate. My focus is on quality work. That’s what motivates me. Let others be motivated by hate.

Remember:

And so far May is much better than April. Thank you very much.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WnUMjw Tyler Durden

April Jobs Smash Expectations, Soar By 263K, But Wage Growth Muted

While overall expectations for the April payrolls number were generally in line, the “whisper” was for some weakness below the 190K consensus as a result of delayed census hiring (as discussed earlier). However, it was just not meant to be as the US job  market juggernaut continues to accelerate, and moments ago the BLS reported that in April the US economy added another 263K, smashing expectations of a 190K print, and well above both the March (189K) and February (56K) prints.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised up from +33,000 to +56,000, and the change for March was revised down from +196,000 to +189,000. With these revisions, employment gains in February and March combined were 16,000 more than previously reported. After revisions, job gains have averaged 169,000 per month over the last 3 months.

While overall payrolls were scorching, the goldilocks picture continued, as Average hourly earnings rose “only” 0.2% from the prior month, and 3.2% from a year earlier – once again these figures were below forecasts and the same as March’s readings, however it is worth noting that wages for production and nonsupervisory workers accelerated to a 3.4% gain from 3.3%, signaling gains for lower-paid employees.

While of secondary importance, the jobless rate fell to a new 49-year low of 3.6%, though that was partly due to another drop in the size of the labor force; the household survey showed the employed fell by 103,000, the unemployed fell by 387,000, and the overall labor force shrank by 490K to 162.47 million.

Also of note, and a key point that Trump will be making shortly is that Hispanic unemployment dropped to a record low.

 

 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VLFbgw Tyler Durden

OPEC Collapse Likely, Warns Iran’s Oil Minister

Iran has warned that OPEC might “collapse” due to the “unilateral actions” by some of its members, in a clear jab at Saudi Arabia. 

“Iran is a member of OPEC because of its interests, and if other members of OPEC seek to threaten Iran or endanger its interests, Iran will not remain silent,” Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh said on Thursday, as quoted by the ministry’s official news agency, SHANA.

OPEC headquarters, image via WSJ

Following the US declaring its “maximum pressure” campaign to take Iran crude exports down to zero, and ending the waiver program, Saudi Arabia and its close ally UAE pledged they will maintain appropriate supply for the markets to compensate for the shortfall — in accordance with President Trump’s demands that OPEC do more to curb rising oil prices.

Zanganeh had issued the statements warning of the oil cartel’s collapse on the occasion OPEC Secretary-General Mohammad Barkindo visit to an oil and gas exhibition in the Iranian capital. Barkindo had sought to assure the Iranians that “OPEC tries to depoliticize oil” by saying at the exhibition, “I have told my colleagues at OPEC that you must leave your passports home when coming to this organization,” according to Reuters. 

Iran last month also accused Saudi Arabia and its allies of exaggerating their surplus oil capacity, to which the oil minister followed this week by saying “any threat from member states won’t go unanswered.”

Meanwhile the OPEC Secretary-General, in a further attempt to calm fears of an unraveling OPEC, told reporters, “It is impossible to eliminate Iranian oil from the market.” He added, “We have faced troubles in the OPEC in the last 60 years, but we have resolved them by unity.”

Iran oil minister Bijan Zanganeh. Image source: Iran’s SHANA

And referencing global geopolitical hot spots in which conflict and tensions have been clearly linked to the oil factor, Secretary-General Barkindo observed, “What is happening in Iran, Venezuela or Libya has an impact on all the market and the energy sector.”

Meanwhile the latest Washington The decision to end the waivers will impact recipients in different ways: Three of the eight countries that were granted the 180-day waivers back in November – Greece, Italy and Taiwan – have already reduced their Iranian oil imports to zero.

The other countries that will need to cut off imports or face serious repercussions include China, India, Turkey, Japan and South Korea. As of now, China and India are the largest importers of Iranian oil, and if they don’t swiftly act to cut down on their imports, bilateral relations with the US could suffer.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VF20CS Tyler Durden

Cryptos Gain As Facebook Seeks Reported $1 Billion For FB Coin Amid Talks With Visa, MasterCard

Having erased, the dip from the BitFinex scandal, Bitcoin has pushed up to almost $5800 this morning – its highest since 11/14/18 – helped by reports that social media giant Facebook is seeking investments worth $1 billion for its rumored cryptocurrency stablecoin, according to the Wall Street Journal.

As CoinTelegraph.com reports, citing people familiar with the plans, WSJ revealed Facebook was currently talking to major payment networks Visa and MasterCard about potential support, along with payment processor First Data Corp.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

The cryptocurrency project, dubbed “FB Coin,” has fuelled rumors for around a year that Facebook wants to provide in-house payments to users.

As more information trickles down to the outside, it appears various options are under consideration by executives, including payments via a user’s Facebook profile.

“Facebook is also talking to e-commerce companies and apps about accepting the coin, and would seek smaller financial investments from those partners, one of the people said,” the WSJ added.

As Cointelegraph reported, interest in a fiat-centric FB Coin has already reportedly come from within cryptocurrency circles, specifically in the form of VC investment mogul Tim Draper.

Last month, plans surfaced that Draper, who is a well-known bitcoin (BTC) bull and supporter of altcoin Tezos (XTZ), would meet with Facebook to discuss investment options.

According to the WSJ sources, however, the huge fiat backing is further deliberately designed to remove perceived doubts about FB Coin versus bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Volatility, they said, should be avoided in order to boost uptake.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WnHRy7 Tyler Durden