Jeffrey Sachs’s message to Zelensky: “To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal” Google image search this quote can be found in a million memes with background’s of flowerbeds and K Pop stars Zelensky missed it
James Fox returns for the second of two back-to-back episodes on Julian Dorey Podcast to discuss his latest Documentary, “Moment of Contact.” MoC covers the 1996 Varginha UFO Incident in Brazil in which a UFO crashed and witnesses allegedly came into contact with at least 2 different live aliens.
The Australian Government has recently introduced in Parliament a newย law proposalย to ban officially unapproved online content. Digital companies are expected to adopt a code of conduct which will see them censor speech based on broad, vague and far-reaching directives.
Bunch of nimwits and petty fascists:
The concept of โharmโ peddled by the bill is illusory, and its content would be subjectively determined by a powerful government agency. The definition of what is and what isnโt harm is malleable and can expand and contract depending on ACMAโs prevailing views. Ultimately, any type of speech with which the government is uncomfortable could be deemed โharmfulโ.
Who is going to trust a fascist regime with the definition of harm?
A bill on fighting โmisinformation and disinformationโ and โharmโ aims to empower a government agency to police online expression
By Augusto Zimmermann, Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Australia, President of WALTA โ Legal Theory Association, and former Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (C) in the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra ยฉ DAVID GRAY / AFP
The Australian Government has recently introduced in Parliament a new law proposal to ban officially unapproved online content. Digital companies are expected to adopt a code of conduct which will see them censor speech based on broad, vague and far-reaching directives.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill2023 foreshadows the imposition of a legal obligation on digital platforms to police alleged โmisinformationโ and โdisinformationโ. If that does not work, the law proposal provides for the full empowerment of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to directly intervene for the purpose of preventing โharmโ.
Section 2 of the proposed legislation defines โharmโ as follows:
(a) hatred against a group in Australian society on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability;
(b) disruption of public order or society in Australia;
(c) harm to the integrity of Australian democratic processes or of Commonwealth, State, Territory or local government institutions;
(d) harm to the health of Australians;
(e) harm to the Australian environment;
(f) economic or financial harm to Australians, the Australian economy or a sector of the Australian economy.
The concept of โharmโ peddled by the bill is illusory, and its content would be subjectively determined by a powerful government agency. The definition of what is and what isnโt harm is malleable and can expand and contract depending on ACMAโs prevailing views. Ultimately, any type of speech with which the government is uncomfortable could be deemed โharmfulโ. For example, describing โdisrupting social orderโ as serious harm could be interpreted to stop the organization of legitimate political protests. This could certainly be used to suppress legitimate political speech that should be part of a functioning democracy.
Above all, ACMA would gain sweeping powers to require any person to appear at a time and place of its choosing to answer questions about misinformation or disinformation. These powers include infringement notices, remedial directions, injunctions and civil penalties, including fines of up to AU$550,000 (US$358,000) for individuals and AU$2.75 million for corporations. Criminal penalties, including imprisonment, may also apply in cases of allegedย โextreme harm.โ
The provisions found in this law proposal put the communications and lives of free-thinkers, human rights defenders, independent journalists, and ordinary citizens under constant risk. They go in direct opposition to international human rights expertsโ advice that โgeneral prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including โfalse newsโ or โnon-objective informationโ, are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expressionโฆ and should be abolished.โ
It is noteworthy that the Australian Government is exempted from the proposed legislation. Hence, the content issued by the government is never to be considered โmisinformationโ but criticisms of the government by ordinary citizens can. It is certainly ironic that views incompatible with the governmentโs preferred narrative could be deemed to โharmโ the integrity of Australiaโs democracy since it would disallow speech and expressive conduct that is integral to the maintenance of democratic processes.
In its 12-page submission to the Law Council, the Victorian Bar Association explains that this proposed legislation effectively creates an โunlevel playing field between governments and other speakersโ that disadvantages government critics in comparison to government supporters. โThe billโs interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services,โ says the Victorian Bar.
Above all, ACMAโs enforcement of the proposed legislation will inevitably stymie discussion of controversial topics, especially if they involve criticism of government policy and actions. This scenario is likely to unfold when the impugned speech is incompatible with the governmentโs official narrative. Thus, the proposed legislation targets those who, merely exercising their right to free speech, critically assess the desirability of government decisions and actions.
Other concerns with the proposed โmisinformationโ legislation include the possibility of suspending the activities of internet companies in Australia if they fail to comply with the obligations created, as well as increased criminal penalties for libel and defamation which are incompatible with international human rights standards.
As can be seen, the proposed legislation constitutes a serious attack on the democratic right of Australians to free speech. Digital platforms will be legally obliged to police commentatorsโ discussion of controversial topics. Under this โmisinformationโ legislation, any honest and robust debate about government policies will be effectively outlawed.
To conclude, our freedom of political communication is under attack in Australia. If the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill is enacted, then the free expression of ideas will be basically outlawed by the Australian Government. In short, the enactment of this law proposal will spell the end of authentic democracy in Australia. Australians are basically witnessing the transformation of their system of representative government into nothing more than a less open, or more disguised, form of elective dictatorship.
Throughout a broad-ranging and prolific career, Col. John Alexander (retired) has developed expertise in topics like national defense and international security (including pioneering non-lethal weapons), UFOs and phenomenology, and aerospace. He will be joined in conversation by George Knapp, an award-winning investigative journalist credited with publicizing Bob Lazar and Area 51 as well as the โSkinwalker Ranch.โ
Vail Symposium has been providing thought-provoking, affordable and diverse programming to the Vale community since 1971. We are a nonprofit organization and 90% of our operating revenue comes from sponsors and donors, including our presenting sponsors, Discovervail.com/the town of Vail and the Frechette family foundation. Our event sponsors are Vail Resorts, Epic Promise, The Vail Daily and the Antlers at Vail. The summer season is generously underwritten by Cindy Engels and the consciousness series is generously underwritten by Gary Gilman.
The internet is about to change.ย In many countries, there’s currently a coordinated legislative push to effectively outlaw encryption of user uploaded content under the guise of protecting children.ย This means websites or internet services (messaging apps, email, etc.) could be held criminally or civilly liable if someone used it to upload abusive material. If these bills become law, people like myself who help supplyย private communication servicesย could be penalized or put into prison for simply protecting the privacy of our users. In fact, anyone who runs a website with user-uploaded content could be punished the same way. In today’s article, I’ll show you why these bills not only fail at protecting children but also put the internet as we know it in jeopardy, as well as why we should question the organizations behind the push.
Let’s quickly recap some of the legislation.
European Union
– Chat Control: would require internet services (Email, chat, storage) to scan all messages and content and report flagged content to the EU. This would require that every internet based service scans everything uploaded to it, even if it’s end-to-end encrypted. Content would be analyzed using machine learning (i.e. AI) and matches would automatically be reported to the police. This is awaiting a vote from the EU LIBE committee.
Chat Control is overwhelmingly opposed by EU citizens but is advancing regardless.ย Source
United Kingdom
–Theย Online Safety Act 2023: would require user service providers to enforce age limits and checks, remove legal but harmful content for children, and require scanning photos for materials related to child sexual abuse & exploitation, as well as terrorism. It would require providers to be able to identify these types of materials in private communications and to take down that content.ย This means providers would need visibility into messaging, even those messages are end-to-end encrypted. End-to-end encrypted messaging providers such as WhatsApp, Viber, Signal, and Element haveย indicated in an open letterย that surveillance of this type simply isn’t possible without breaking end-to-end encryption entirely, and have threatened to leave the UK if the bill was passed & enforced without the offending Clause 122. This bill was recently passed by parliament unchanged and will become enforceable in 2024.
United States
– The EARN IT Act 2023: would allow US states to hold websites criminally liable for not scanning user uploaded content for CSAM (child sexual abuse material). This would effectively ban end to end encryption. This bill has 22 cosponsors and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.
– The STOP CSAM Act 2023 (Full Text): would allow victims who suffered abuse or exploitation as children to sue any website that hosted pictures of the exploitation or abuse “recklessly”, e.g. if your website was not automatically scanning uploads. Websites are already required by law to remove CSAM if made aware of it, but this would require providers to scan all files uploaded. This bill has 4 cosponsors and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.
– Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA): would require platforms to verify the ages of their visitors and filter content promoting self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, and sexual exploitation. This would inherently require an age verification system for all users and transparency into content algorithms, including data sharing with third parties. This bill has 47 bi-partisan cosponsors and is awaiting an order to report to the Senate.
Its important to note that the language in these bills and the definition for “service providers” extends to any website or online property that has user-uploaded content.ย This could be as simple as a blog that allows comments, or a site that allows file uploads. It could be a message board or chatroom, literally anything on the internet that has two-way communication.ย Most websites are operated by everyday people – not huge tech companies. They have neither the resources nor the ability to implement scanning on their websites under threat of fine or imprisonment. They would risk operating in violation or be forced to shut down their website. This means your favorite independent media site, hobbyist forum, or random message board could disappear. These bills would crumble the internet as we know it and centralize it further for the benefit of Big Tech who are rapidly expanding the surveillance agenda.
We must pause and ask ourselves, is this effort to ramp up surveillance really about protecting children?
How do companies currently deal with CSAM?
In the United States, tracking CSAM is recognized as a joint effort between ESPs (Electronic Service Providers) like Google, and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) a private non-profit established by Congress in 1984 and primarily funded by the United States Department of Justice. Unlimited Hangouthas previously reported on the NCMEC and its ties to figures such as Hillary Clinton and intelligence-funded NGOs such as Thorn. They also receive corporate contributions from big names such as Adobe, Disney, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir, Ring Doorbell, Verizon, and Zoom.
Electronic service providers in the United States are already required to report to the CyberTipline (Federal statute 18 USC 2258A) if they become aware of CSAM, otherwise, they may face fines or prison time. These CyberTipline reports combine offending content with additional information such as identifying the potential perpetrator, the victim, and other context that is combined and sent off to law enforcement.
Photo & content scanning measures are not required. However, several prominent companies have voluntarily implemented scanning of communications and media, such as Gmail, YouTube, Google Photos, Facebook, Instagram Messenger, Skype, Snapchat, iCloud email, and Microsoft’s Xbox. If you use these services, then your messages and media may automatically be scanned for abusive material.
Does voluntary content scanning actually help protect children?
Google began publishing a CSAM transparency report in 2021 which gives numbers on how much CSAM was identified and reported on across Google & YouTube. It includes data since 2020, with counts for how many reports were made to the NCMEC, how many different Google accounts were disabled, and how many “hashes” (photo fingerprints) were contributed to the NCMEC hash database.
It is unclear exactly when Google started creating “hashes” of its user’s photos, but they have contributed 2.5 million new hashes to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Hash Database to date. Reportsย are publishedย every 6 months, and we’ve seen staggering growth in all types of reports since 2020. For example, Google’s CyberTipline reports have grown from ~547,000 in 2020, ~870,000 in 2021, to more than 2.1 million reports in 2022. The first half of 2023 has shown a decline, totalling ~750,000 reports from January to June.
As seen on NCMEC’s CyberTipline Data page, Google’s reports represent a mere fraction of the total number of reports submitted to the NCMEC, which works with over 1,500 ESPs – mostly US companies. 5 electronic service providers (Facebook, Instagram, Google, WhatsApp, and Omegle) accounted for more than 90% of the 32 million reports in 2022. Around half (49%) of these reports in 2022 are “actionable”, meaning there is sufficient information for law enforcement to proceed with an investigation. Additionally, 89.9% of reports involved content uploaded by users outside of the US.
The NCMEC also reports the numbers of CyberTipline reports made to different law enforcement organizations such as Internet Crimes Against Children, Local LE, Federal LE, and International LE.
Law enforcement is not required to give any feedback on what happens with these reports and, as a result, they hardly provide feedback. Using the NCMEC’s own numbers, we can see there is little visibility on how the reports are used.
In 2022, we saw the following rates of feedback from law enforcement and other groups who received reports.
International Crimes Against Children Groups – 491,655 actionable reports resulted in 41.59% Feedback
Local Law Enforcement – 1,462 actionable reports resulted in 3.48% Feedback
Federal Law Enforcement – 1,356,988 reports resulted in 0.03% Feedback
International Law Enforcement – 13,995,567 reports resulted in 0.4% Feedback
Keep in mind, a feedback response doesn’t necessarily mean an arrest or conviction. Feedback responses could may indicate the report was closed or incomplete feedback. Also, these results are not open to the public, although a FOIA request could change that. However, these numbers make it clear that whether companies are voluntarily scanning their content or creating reports after becoming aware of CSAM – there’s no visibility on what actually happens with the reports.
Given the huge volume of reports not acted upon, forcing technology providers to automatically scan content & generate reports is not going to magically change things. It will require law enforcement to act on reports to put child predators behind bars and save children. That is, after all, what legislators say they want.
That’s not to say nothing is being done. A 2022 report of CyberTipline success stories in the United States stated that close to 714 different cases used CyberTipline reports. Only 16 of these cases explicitly reported the assistance of a service provider.
Again, out of 1.35 million actionable CyberTipline reports in the United States in 2022, there have been 714 arrests so far. It is possible there are ongoing investigations that will bring this number higher, but we can only guess without transparency. I was unable to find success stories for any prior years.
I commend these efforts to protect children from dangerous predators; however, these efforts do not necessitate automatic scanning of everyone’s messages or the gutting of encryption. Generating more reports from service providers obviously does not lead to more arrests being made. Lastly, the majority of CSAM material comes from big tech providers, many of whom are voluntarily scanning content anyway. Why enforce this requirement on every website on the internet?
If legislators around the world want to make a genuine impact on child abuse, then they should push for transparency and accountability practices for law enforcement and work to ensure that law enforcement properly investigates the millions upon millions of reports they already receive every year, and make the data available to the public.
We the people need to know that the groups responsible for investigating child abuse are doing their jobs with the processes and data already available, rather than further sacrificing our individual privacy and security for more of the same. The bills/laws in question also lack an understanding of encryption, are not technically feasible to implement, put unnecessary legal liability on technology companies, and lack evidence that the policies will improve outcomes for children.
How can the online child abuse laws across Western countries be so consistent with their practices? How did they all reach the same strategies of age verification, content filtering, and client-side scanning?
The framework for this legislation has been in the works for years. One key architect of this push has been the WePROTECT Global Alliance, a merger of initiatives between the European Commission, the US Department of Justice, and the UK Government. Their first summit was hosted in 2014 and is now comprised of 97 governments, 25 technology companies, and 30 civil society organizations.
UNICEF, a member of WePROTECT, released a “model national response” which outlines many of the elements we see in these different child safety bills today. UNICEF and organizations like the US Department of Justice state that sexual exploitation of children cannot be addressed by one country, company, or organization working in isolation. Troublingly, both of those groups have a history of turning a blind eye to child abuse in their respective organizations and/or jurisdictions (see here, here, here and here for examples).
Working groups like the “Five Country” government counterparts (Five Eyes) – USA, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand- have met with the corporate executives of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Roblox, Snap, and Twitter to collaborate on guidelines such as the “Voluntary Principles to Counter Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse” (justice.gov link). These groups are all working together, via public-private partnerships like theย Global Cyber Alliance,ย among others, to change the face of the internet.
– an uneven response to online child safety by the tech sector; – a CyberTipline system that is overwhelmed; – anonymization of offenders; – encryption of data storage and communications; – online environments where children and adults interact without supervision or controls; – globalized, often sovereignless, platforms; – remote, often extraterritorial, storage; and – a compounding lack of public awareness of these risks.
While the issue of child exploitation online is grave and child abusers need to be held accountable – this shouldn’t come of our individual privacy and freedom. From the publicly stated perspectives of these groups, anonymization, encryption, and not allowing governments or tech companies to track all content is equivalent to contributing to child exploitation.
Ignoring the child abuse right in front of their noses
As noted earlier, many of these groups have a track record of responding very poorly to serious child abuse issues when these crimes involve their own organization or persons with political value.ย For instance, there have been nearly 2,000 allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation made against U.N “Peacekeepers” worldwide between 2004 and 2016, as reported by theย Associated Press. This includes the child sex ring in Haiti from 2004 to 2007 where Sri Lankan UN “Peacekeepers” traded food in exchange for sex with children as young as nine years old.
The names of the offenders are kept confidential by the UN, and the UN puts the responsibility on member states to investigate & prosecute. UN records on these allegations are also incomplete and hundreds of cases have been closed without explanation. The United Nations even continues to send Sri Lankan peacekeepers to Haiti, despite the scandals. In the United States, we can see a similar level of accountability with the Department of Justice still withholding the client list for Jeffrey Epstein’s child prostitution ring, among many, many other examples.
The very organizations that try to convince us to give up our individual liberties for the sake of the children will completely ignore crimes against children when it suits them. Can we really trust these organizations to protect children?
The real-time monitoring of messages and outlawing of privacy will not protect children. On the contrary, it would put their communications into the hands of more third parties. The wiser choice would be to encourage parental awareness and conscious use of technology, e.g. not giving children unlimited access to mobile phones or devices and avoiding use of popular social media platforms and messengers.
If these actors truly cared about protecting children, then they would call an end to the genocide & war crimes occurring in Gaza. Instead, the US is rushing to provide aid to Israel in the form of munitions. In the UK, only 80 out of 650 MP’s have called for a ceasefire. Instead, there is more interest in clamping down on and controlling the internet, a crucial resource for all people in a time of great need.
Inter-governmental organizations are pushing towards an internet where our identities are verified and our messages are tracked. With such legislation coming our way all over the world, how can we retain any privacy?
The answer is simple – do not comply. Do not follow along with big tech companies that voluntarily follow legislative guidelines. Find ways to decentralize your use of software. Invest your time into divesting from big tech and learning alternative solutions for communications, storage, and encryption. Given the stakes, there has never been a more important time to divest from these companies and their software.
Thankfully, there are still many ways that individuals can limit their dependence on centralized software services that perform content or AI scanning. We can boycott those Big Tech companies that scan our content including Microsoft, Google, Apple and countless others. It’s just a matter of learning how to take back our technology.
At this point, you might be asking:
How do we continue to find information on the internet without Google’s search engine?
Or use our computers without Microsoft’s Windows and Apple’s macOS?
Or use our phones without Google’s Android or Apple’s iOS?
Or use our browser without Google’s Chrome, Microsoft’s Edge, or Apple’s Safari? (the oligopoly of these behemoths extends everywhere.)
Solving these problems with alternative software has been the mission of my initiative Take Back Our Tech, and today I am honored to share 5 Ways To Protect Yourself from Incoming Internet Surveillance Bills with the Unlimited Hangout community.
1. Use a “free” operating system for your computer.
Traditional operating systems (“OSs”) like Windows and macOS are proprietary software, which is distinct from free software. It’s important to understand the difference between the two, as the topic will come up again. So let’s define proprietary and free software.
Proprietary software, or “non-free software,” is not available for users to study, observe, or change. As the user, you are given no rights.
For example,ย only the developersย of Microsoft Windows can get a clear look at the code of the operating system and understand what it does. Users have no way to view the code and verify what the program does.
In contrast, free software(also known as Free & Open Source Software FOSS)gives users rights. The Free Software Foundation, one of the leading organizations behind the Free Software movement, provides an extended definition:
“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got them, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Alternative operating systems based on GNU/Linux are free software. They offer many intended benefits:
Visibility into changes: Any user or developer can take a look at code updates and ensure that the operating system is not acting unexpectedly or maliciously. For instance, users of the Ubuntu OS fought back against changes that sent search results to Amazon and got the changes overturned.
More choices: Because others can modify and distribute free software at will, far more software choices exist in the free software ecosystem โ choices that often outcompete and provide more value than proprietary software.
Costs: All Linux distributions are FREE as in cost. Compare this to paying for Windows activation keys.
Freedom: Your computer will not automatically track every program that you run, as does macOS, or force updates on you, as Windows does (and to which you agree in their terms of service, a document very few take the time to read).
So what are you waiting for? Throw your proprietary software in the trash and enjoy an operating system that respects your freedom and your data.
If you’re still not convinced and want to see all the ways traditional operating systems take advantage of you, read our Leap to Linux article.
If you’re interested in learning how to install a Linux-based OS, please follow #TBOT’s guide.
Here are some recommendations for free operating systems based on Linux. You can download the .iso file (in which the OS is contained) for each operating system from the following links as well as feature walkthroughs.
Once you’ve made your decision of OS you can follow the guide linked above to get it installed on your machine.
The two main choices for traditional mobile operating systems today is Google’s Android, and Apple’s iOS. These two options make up 99%+ of the global market share of mobile operating systems. With over 6.6 billion phones on Earth, the data pipeline to these two companies is incomprehensibly large – they’ve got real-time data for almost every person on the planet.
Observational studies of both Android and iOS-based phones found that these devices connect back to their parent companies every 5 minutes. In addition, they collect unique device identifiers, phone numbers, locations, and other surprising info.
Although it would be too lengthy to discuss these issues in-depth in this article, if you’d like to see exactly what tracking and data collection occurs on these mobile operating systems, you can read #TBOT’s analysis here.
A few alternative operating systems have popped up in recent years that can compete with the likes of Google and Apple. These operating systems are referred to as “de-googled” operating systems, and are typically built on top of Android’s Open Source Platform (AOSP). This code is maintained by Google, but other developers have been able to build new features on top of it, and more importantly, to remove any behind-the-scenes tracking or data collection.
You can use one of these alternative operating systems today to configure your own “privacy phone.”
I recommend these three operating systems (note that each is compatible with only certain phones):
You can get more information on supported phones and the install instructions on each website.
Alternatively, if you are pressed for time or don’t want to do the research and make the tech decisions yourself, you can get a phone out of the box that comes complete with GrapheneOS and useful free software apps and communication services, through my project Above Phone.
De-googled phones use alternative app stores like F-Droid (where all apps are free software) and Aurora Store (which will allow you to download apps anonymously from the Google Play Store).
Normal Android phones also have access to these apps, but will still suffer from centralized tracking through Google Services. If you have an Android-based phone you can get started with these alternative app stores right away. Get more details on the links below:
You may be surprised at how easily you can transition to a de-googled phone โ there are user friendly, private, and functional options for almost all of your app needs. You can also use apps like Uber & AirBnb, which don’t work without Google services, but there is usually a workaround, like using those services from within a web browser, or by using advanced features like GrapheneOS’s sandboxing to isolate Google Services from the rest of your phone.
3. Own your data.
If a major cyber event caused the internet to go down, how would you recover the photos/files/information you stored on cloud services? How would you get the information you needed to prepare for a survival situation?
It would be best to have this information on hand when you need it – not desperately trying to recover it in the event of a cyber disaster.
At a minimum, you should back up all of the following on your local computer instead of on the cloud service you use currently: passwords, legal documents, books, photos, reference material, and maps.
Knowledge is power. Download all the books you need in PDF format. A great site to start is PDFDrive
Need to navigate offline? Organic Maps (available on F-Droid and for Android phones) lets you download maps of most of the regions on the planet โ and you can route to different locations using GPS only (which means you don’t need a SIM card in your phone).
If you use Google Drive or iCloud, now is the time to export all of your photos, videos, and documents to a local hard drive. Here’s a tutorial on how to export Google Drive files. Here’s an tutorial on how to export files on iCloud.
Are you managing your passwords in the cloud? Know that cloud password managers are not immune to hacking attempts. The best place for your passwords is in an encrypted password vault on your computer. An attacker would need not only the password vault file on your computer, but also the master password used to encrypt the vault. A collection of software called Keepass offers a cohesive way to manage and sync passwords locally on your computer and on your phone.
4. Support alternatives.
A wide range of software can serve as alternatives in the open-source software ecosystem. I’ve categorized and listed several great ones below, all of which are programs for Linux computers!
I2P: Private peer-to-peer networking layer. VeraCrypt: Open-source cross-platform disk encryption
Browsers
Ungoogled Chromium: A (fork) copy of Google’s Chromium engine with tracking removed LibreWolf: Firefox fork with improved privacy Falkon: KDE Project’s web browser
Email
Evolution: A mail client, calendar, address book, and task manager in one Thunderbird: Mozilla Foundation’s email, chat, and calendaring client Mailspring: Easy-to-use, modern mail client with integrations to major email providers KMail: KDE’s email client that supports many mail protocols
Communication
Kotatogram: Alternate Telegram client with improved offline features AnyDesk: Remote desktop / support software Jitsi: Free video conferencing Jami: Free and open-source peer-to-peer video conferencing.
Social Media
Nostr: a decentralized social media protocol PeerTube: Decentralized video broadcasting Nitter: Alternative twitter front end Invidious: Alternative YouTube front end Libreddit: Alternative Reddit front end Owncast: Self-hosted live video and web chat server
Graphics
Krita: Free and open source digital illustration program Inkscape: Professional vector-based graphics editor GIMP: One of the oldest and best- known image editors Pinta: Bitmap editor similar to Paint.NET Gravit Designer: Vector-based design app Blender: End-to-end 3D creation suite
Photography
DarkTable: Virtual light table and darkroom for photography DigiKam: Personal photo management
Video Editors
Kdenlive: The KDE project’s video editor Davinci Resolve: High-end professional video editor OpenShot: Easy-to-use, powerful video editor
Video Utilities
OBS Studio: Video recording and live streaming Kazam: Record videos of your screen Peek: Record videos and gifs of your screen Spectacle: KDE’s screenshot tool
Technical Tools
Remmina: A remote desktop client VirtualBox: Create virtual machines
Writing
CherryTree: Hierarchical note-taking application that stores multimedia notes in an encrypted database (not markdown) Trillium Notes: Build knowledge bases & graphs with this extensible note-taking application (not markdown) Joplin Notes: Create simple notes and to do lists using markdown
Reading
Foxit PDF: Feature-rich PDF reader. Sioyek: PDF reader for academic papers.
Office
LibreOffice: Most popular open-source office suite for Linux OnlyOffice: Collaborative online document editor CryptPad: Browser-based encrypted document editor HomeBank: Personal money management
5. Own your communications.
Although social messengers like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, and Facebook Messenger can be useful, many of them are not open source. Even the ones that claim to be open source often only make the front end of the application visible for inspection (that part you interact with directly), not the server-side code that is responsible for delivering messages.
Chat protocols like XMPP and Nostr are fully open source, meaning the code is available for the client and server. This is especially important because it means that you can run the server-side software yourself on a computer under your control. This is called self-hosting, and it’s crucial to censorship resistance and verifying that a software does what it says.
XMPP is over 20 years old and can support tens of thousands of users on a single server. It offers end-to-end encrypted messaging, voice calls, and video calls (as well as files and audio messages). It can be used on computers, phones, and in a web browser, and it’s also completely free to join (you can join any public server). It can even be bridged to the phone network (anonymous phone numbers without needing a SIM card anyone?).
It’s a wonder why XMPP isn’t more well known, but part of the reason could be that it’s hard to monetize (make money) on XMPP. The protocol has been used under the hood for major chat services run by big tech companies scaling to millions of users, unfortunately these big companies hid the underlying technology.
Above Phone is attempting to change this. The Above Privacy Suite offers a professional XMPP service with enhanced privacy. It comes in a bundle with 5 other privacy services.
If you want video lessons on how to use XMPP for chats, calls, and video calls, you can check out Above Phone’s webinar.
Conclusion
The internet is changing and battle lines are being drawn. On one side, government organizations have become obsessed with invading our personal communications and drastically advancing the ever encroaching surveillance state, supposedly “for the sake of the children.” Together with enthusiastic help from Big Tech, they threaten to monitor every single thought, idea, or creation you share on the internet.
On the other side are people who are not going to let that happen. We’re the underdogs, a small but growing number of people who are demanding privacy and freedom over convenience. It doesn’t have to be their way or the highway when it comes to technology, we can carve our own path, experimenting with software that is friendly and in alignment with our values. Hopefully, this guide can give you a starting point to understand your technology and places to find alternatives.
I encourage you to not only explore and use the software listed in this guide, but to support the developers with financial donations. Their projects may be the key to both surviving and thriving in the growing surveillance state.
Canadian economic performance remained flat in August and likely slipped into a shallow contraction in the third quarter, according to the countryโs statistics office.
The slowdown has been attributed to higher interest rates, inflation, forest fires, and drought conditions across the country.
Preliminary data indicated that real GDP was unchanged in September as well, for the third month in a row.
According to the report, services-producing industries increased 0.1% month-on-month, while goods-producing industries contracted 0.2%. Overall, only eight of 20 industrial sectors expanded, according to the figures.
The manufacturing sector contracted 0.6% in August, as non-durable and durable goods manufacturing contributed to the decrease for the third straight month.
The mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction sector rose 1.2% in August.ย โThis third consecutive monthly increase brought activity above the April level before activity fell in May due in part to the impact of the forest fires,โย Statistics Canada wrote in its report.
Wholesale trade was up 2.3% in August, while retail business, which shrank for the third month in a row, declined 0.7%. Accommodation and food services fell 1.8% in August, showing a contraction in both subsectors.
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting contracted 3.2% in August, its most significant decline since August 2021. The report indicated that crop production (except for cannabis) declined 6.7% in August 2023, mainly due to dry conditions in Western Canada that are pushing down expected yields.
โWhether or not the economy is already in recession is less important than the fact that the lagged impacts of monetary policy are likely to materially depress economic activity moving forward,โ Tiago Figueiredo, an economist with Desjardins, told Reuters. โAs a result, we expect the economy to more clearly enter a recession in 2024.โ
Last week, the Bank of Canada decided to keep its benchmark interest rate steady at 5% for the second straight time during its recent meetings after hiking rates ten times since early 2022. The regulator, however, warned that more increases were possible as it struggles to reign in soaring inflation.
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has described sanctions against Russia imposed by the West as โleversโ that advanced economies have at their disposal โbased on mechanisms, powers and tools built over many years.โ
โThey use these levers when it suits them,โ he said in an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera during last weekโs visit to Rome. โIt’s not that they go to the United Nations to seek legitimacy; they do it when they think their interests are at stake. Many parts of the world do not accept the concept of sanctions in the same way. It is done as if the whole world agreed on sanctions. Itโs not really like that.โ
Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar looks on during a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in the Treaty Room of the US Department of State in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2023. ยฉ Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has described sanctions against Russia imposed by the West as โleversโ that advanced economies have at their disposal โbased on mechanisms, powers and tools built over many years.โ
โThey use these levers when it suits them,โ he said in an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera during last weekโs visit to Rome. โIt’s not that they go to the United Nations to seek legitimacy; they do it when they think their interests are at stake. Many parts of the world do not accept the concept of sanctions in the same way. It is done as if the whole world agreed on sanctions. Itโs not really like that.โ
When asked why emerging countries bring up the โdouble standardsโ of the West when it comes to the Ukraine conflict or the war between Israel and Gaza, the foreign minister replied that this sentiment had a lot to do with its Eurocentric attitude toward global affairs.
โA lot of it comes from the fact that, in the past, when there were problems in other parts of the world, European countries essentially thought it wasnโt their place to worry about it. As long as Europe was safe and nothing threatened the European way of life, others could take care of it. Then, when something happens in Europe, European countries want international expressions of solidarity,โ he said.
India has abstained from all resolutions moved against Russia in the United Nations (UN) since it launched its military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. New Delhi has also increased the purchase of Russian crude oil and continued buying weapons from Moscow.
Indiaโs trade volume with Russia has soared in recent months, with turnover for goods in January-August already surpassing the total for the previous year. According to data from the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, total trade between the two countries in the first eight months of the year reached nearly $44 billion.
Jaishankarโs comments come days after he asserted that New Delhi had acted in its โbest interestsโ when it decided to continue buying oil from Russia in spite of pressure from the West.
Speaking at an event in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, last week, the foreign minister said New Delhiโs โstrong stance on our right to buy oil from Russiaโ had received a lot of attention. โHad we not exercised that option, think about what a difference it would have made to you, think how much higher your petroleum prices would have been, think how much inflation would have gone up in this country,โ he told the audience.
Upon being asked by the Italian outlet to comment on Prime Minister Giorgia Meloniโs recent remark that there is โfatigueโ over the Ukraine conflict, Jaishankar recalled Indian PM Narendra Modi telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that โtoday is no time for warโ in Uzbekistan last year.
โAn ordinary person would say that, at some point, people have to sit at a table and talk,โ Jaishankar noted, adding that India is โalways readyโ to lend a hand.
Compared to the Soviet-style censorship bot OpenAI has created, Grok’s answers are free of purple-haired AI trainers and produce different results. It’s also designed to answer “with a bit of wit and has a rebellious streak,” according to xAI.
Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence venture, xAI, kicked off the non-woke artificial intelligence bot movement over the weekend with the launch of “Grok.” The billionaire’s move is to take on OpenAI’s super-woke ChatGPT.
Musk said over the weekend Grok is “designed to have a little humor in its response” and has “real-time access to info via the ๐ platform, which is a massive advantage over other models.” He also said it’s “based & loves sarcasm.”
Compared to the Soviet-style censorship bot OpenAI has created, Grok’s answers are free of purple-haired AI trainers and produce different results. It’s also designed to answer “with a bit of wit and has a rebellious streak,” according to xAI.
Grok has captured our attention for several reasons. First, it was launched right before OpenAI’s Dev Day (Oct. 6). Secondly, the announcement was delivered with a distinctly snarky tone. Thirdly, it took an explicit anti-woke stance. Fourthly, integrating the ‘free speech’ X platform allows it to scrape real-time data and distribution channels.
Meanwhile, corporate media and progressives are beginning to have meltdowns over the anti-woke bot.
Here’s what Bussiness Insider had to say:
Elon Musk’s new AI chatbot launched on Saturday โ and it appears to have the personality of a foul-mouthed Twitter troll.
Liberals at BI can’t handle cuss words?
Grok appears to be far more foul-mouthed than rivals such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Anthropic’s Claude, and users seem to be able to prompt it to be “more vulgar” if they want to increase the amount of swearing and X-rated content.
A demo shared by an xAI employee Toby Pohlen suggested that the chatbot will have a regular setting and a “fun mode.”
Grok’s limited launch comes about a week after President Biden signed an ambitious executive order on AI safety. Washington’s goal might be to crush the counter-bot movement since their politically-aligned tech companies can’t censor non-approved narratives.
As for liberals, some will have panic attacks because Musk’s non-woke chatbot will jeopardize their ‘safe spaces’ protected by Big Tech and government censorship.
Queue the censorship-industrial complex to start pumping out nasty pieces about Musk and Grok – just like the leftist corporate media did when Meta’s Threads launched in the summer with headlines reading “Twitter Killer.” We all knew Threads would implode, which it did.
โOur citizens should know the urgent facts…but they donโt because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”โOliver Stone