The IRS are trying to posture. If you don't have an identity tied to your wallets, you will be safe. This is why we use non-custodial wallets. This is why we keep our money off exchanges. This is why we should not convert our crypto to fiat and exchange it directly for goods & services. We'll have a platform to do this soon ;)
Forwarded from The People's Reset Activation
Do you have a suggestion for a speaker for the next Greater Reset Activation?
Use this link to submit: https://thegreaterreset.org/nominate-a-speaker/
Use this link to submit: https://thegreaterreset.org/nominate-a-speaker/
Are We On The Brink Of An Internet Apocalpyse: Part I
@neo_network
🌏☄️🤯
Since 2020 we've become aware of the growing pressure to homogenize discussion across the internet on key issues - all for our safety of course.
The major players in Internet 2.0 have take huge steps to moderate their platforms:
- Youtube removed over 2M channels between January & March 2020 alone
- Twitter has suspended a million accounts in the first half of 2020
- Facebook took action on over 100M+ pieces of content across Q3 and Q4 of 2020,
Although these platforms claim to be upholding common morals rather than subjective guidelines, they do not provide any transparency below aggregate statistics. This leaves plenty of room for truthful content & users to get removed and lumped in with these ban waves. One such case that comes to mind is The Conscious Resistance, which had 150K subscribers in October 2020. It had multiple videos deleted with interviews of doctors talking about the benefits Vitamin C, which eventually led to the channel being taken down entirely.
My point is that it is too hard to tell who is actually getting banned without being a part of the banned groups themselves. There is no independent listing for people to make the case for their channels outside the platforms themselves.
As this pressure has increased, the individuals who valued the right to dissent naturally moved towards alternative platforms where they could communicate freely.
And these alt-media platforms have continued to disappoint us, like Bitchute - which has become overrun with far-right & hateful media channels that kill the signal to noise ratio and stink of a limited hangout. And there are even reports of Bitchute terminating channels (which you can really only hear about if you follow the content creator directly)
This process seems to repeat in a perpetual search of alternative-to-the-alternative platforms. Rather than rely on aggregators (which are convenient), we as truth seekers should interact directly with our content creators.
Still, the nightmare scenario is waking up one day to find our favorite sites de-listed from the internet entirely.
In this 2 part series, I wanted to explore if this nightmare scenario is possible, and what it might look like - to give us a better chance of protecting ourselves:
We need to explore three things:
1. What does the judicial precedent look like for the de-listing of domains on the internet?
2. Why did it happen, for what purposes, and at what scale?
3. How does the seizure of a domain work?
You're In Our Sites
The first major thing to know, is that domain seizures started becoming commonplace in 2010, and operation have continued to ramp up every year since then, all across the world - but mainly in the United States & EU.
There were two laws that served as legal basis for these seizures:
- PRO-IP Act of 2008, which increased civil & criminal penalties for copyright infringement, and was used by record labels & recording agencies to sue individuals for sharing copyrighted material
- The civil forfeiture provision (2323) of Title 18 U.S Criminal Code which amended the PRO-IP act, and allowed the agencies conducting these operations to seize domains, goods, and money from targeted operations.
The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center is a joint-task force agency led by U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These two organization launched Operation In Our Sites in 2010. This operation ‘targets websites and their operators that distribute counterfeit and pirated items over the Internet, including counterfeit pharmaceuticals and pirated movies, television shows, music, software, electronics, and other merchandise as well as products that threaten public health and safety’.
This global organization encompasses 24 US & international agencies ranging from agencies in multiple branches of the US armed forces, the postal service, and international law enforcement agencies like Europol, and more.
@neo_network
🌏☄️🤯
Since 2020 we've become aware of the growing pressure to homogenize discussion across the internet on key issues - all for our safety of course.
The major players in Internet 2.0 have take huge steps to moderate their platforms:
- Youtube removed over 2M channels between January & March 2020 alone
- Twitter has suspended a million accounts in the first half of 2020
- Facebook took action on over 100M+ pieces of content across Q3 and Q4 of 2020,
Although these platforms claim to be upholding common morals rather than subjective guidelines, they do not provide any transparency below aggregate statistics. This leaves plenty of room for truthful content & users to get removed and lumped in with these ban waves. One such case that comes to mind is The Conscious Resistance, which had 150K subscribers in October 2020. It had multiple videos deleted with interviews of doctors talking about the benefits Vitamin C, which eventually led to the channel being taken down entirely.
My point is that it is too hard to tell who is actually getting banned without being a part of the banned groups themselves. There is no independent listing for people to make the case for their channels outside the platforms themselves.
As this pressure has increased, the individuals who valued the right to dissent naturally moved towards alternative platforms where they could communicate freely.
And these alt-media platforms have continued to disappoint us, like Bitchute - which has become overrun with far-right & hateful media channels that kill the signal to noise ratio and stink of a limited hangout. And there are even reports of Bitchute terminating channels (which you can really only hear about if you follow the content creator directly)
This process seems to repeat in a perpetual search of alternative-to-the-alternative platforms. Rather than rely on aggregators (which are convenient), we as truth seekers should interact directly with our content creators.
Still, the nightmare scenario is waking up one day to find our favorite sites de-listed from the internet entirely.
In this 2 part series, I wanted to explore if this nightmare scenario is possible, and what it might look like - to give us a better chance of protecting ourselves:
We need to explore three things:
1. What does the judicial precedent look like for the de-listing of domains on the internet?
2. Why did it happen, for what purposes, and at what scale?
3. How does the seizure of a domain work?
You're In Our Sites
The first major thing to know, is that domain seizures started becoming commonplace in 2010, and operation have continued to ramp up every year since then, all across the world - but mainly in the United States & EU.
There were two laws that served as legal basis for these seizures:
- PRO-IP Act of 2008, which increased civil & criminal penalties for copyright infringement, and was used by record labels & recording agencies to sue individuals for sharing copyrighted material
- The civil forfeiture provision (2323) of Title 18 U.S Criminal Code which amended the PRO-IP act, and allowed the agencies conducting these operations to seize domains, goods, and money from targeted operations.
The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center is a joint-task force agency led by U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These two organization launched Operation In Our Sites in 2010. This operation ‘targets websites and their operators that distribute counterfeit and pirated items over the Internet, including counterfeit pharmaceuticals and pirated movies, television shows, music, software, electronics, and other merchandise as well as products that threaten public health and safety’.
This global organization encompasses 24 US & international agencies ranging from agencies in multiple branches of the US armed forces, the postal service, and international law enforcement agencies like Europol, and more.
Year after year, NIPRCC & ICE have come up with cute names for their operations to go after sites that sell counterfeit goods. This started at a small scale at first, with tens to a few hundred domain names being seized, and then grew in size after operation Transatlantic, which seized close to 30,000 domain names.
The latest operation which has been publicly released actually seized over a million websites. Again, they target copyright-infringing sites that sell various fake goods which can range from counterfeit clothing to counterfeit airplane parts.
Though only around 33K websites were criminally seized (transferred into the hands of Homeland Security), an additional 1.21 domain names were civilly seized by ‘industry partners'.
What ‘civilly’ seized means isn't fully explained, but one could surmise that the internet service providers or domain registrars for those zones took measures to strip ownership from the targeted sites.
There aren't any details about the monetary seizures from these new operations, but in past operations we've seen sums of up to 1M seized from the criminal organizations.
Is there a monetary incentive for these agencies to conduct seizures? How much have they seized from the latest operations?
Either way, I'm not sure how much safer I feel being protected from the horrors of the counterfeit basketball jersey industry. 🏀🗑
How Does This Work?
Now that we're aware that this happens at a large scale, and why it may occur, let's discuss how it happens.
First of all, the entire seizure process happens before a trial even takes place. This is allowed through the US forfeiture laws (mentioned earlier in this article).
In the case of these copyright domain seizures, a magistrate judge can grant a seizure warrant based on probable cause. (and they can be convinced to do this based on in-person testimony / hearsay).
Here's an example of one of these seizure warrants in the 2018 takedown of ToKnowAll by the FBI. The request was sent in on Tuesday and was granted the next day.
The process is actually simple and outlined in the warrant itself.
1. The government agency finds the domain registrar hosting the target domain, which must be under its jurisdiction.
2. The Magistrate Judge must find probable cause a crime has been committed and agree on the seizure.
3. The agency then serves the registrar with a seizure warrant, in which the registrar is required to shift registration of that domain to the agency
Is This Even Effective?
By now you must realize that this doesn't actually scrub the content off the internet, it merely makes it inaccessible by its domain name. New domains can be registered in its place, and the IP address can be even be bookmarked by individuals for later use.
Additionally, this domain seizure practice is heavy handed and can be inaccurate. The Center for Democracy & Technology pointed out one case of mistaken seizure targeting a parent domain of thousands of other individual & separate sites.
There's even been instances of the operating taking down legal sites in foreign countries. In 2011, ICE seized a domain from RojaDirecta, a sports streaming site which was declared legal in Spain. A international legal battle ensued which led ICE to give it back.
We must wonder why we allow these practices to continue. It is wrong to have domains seized on ‘probable cause’ without due process. It happens without warning from the owners, and destroys the value of the domain by directing users to splash pages accusing the owners of crimes.
In the second & final part of this article, we will discuss how countries like China implement country-wide censorship and how individuals & developers can utilize old & new technologies to avoid being walled in.
🧱🧱🌤
Read more at @neo_network
Discuss with digital warriors at @neo_network_chat
The latest operation which has been publicly released actually seized over a million websites. Again, they target copyright-infringing sites that sell various fake goods which can range from counterfeit clothing to counterfeit airplane parts.
Though only around 33K websites were criminally seized (transferred into the hands of Homeland Security), an additional 1.21 domain names were civilly seized by ‘industry partners'.
What ‘civilly’ seized means isn't fully explained, but one could surmise that the internet service providers or domain registrars for those zones took measures to strip ownership from the targeted sites.
There aren't any details about the monetary seizures from these new operations, but in past operations we've seen sums of up to 1M seized from the criminal organizations.
Is there a monetary incentive for these agencies to conduct seizures? How much have they seized from the latest operations?
Either way, I'm not sure how much safer I feel being protected from the horrors of the counterfeit basketball jersey industry. 🏀🗑
How Does This Work?
Now that we're aware that this happens at a large scale, and why it may occur, let's discuss how it happens.
First of all, the entire seizure process happens before a trial even takes place. This is allowed through the US forfeiture laws (mentioned earlier in this article).
In the case of these copyright domain seizures, a magistrate judge can grant a seizure warrant based on probable cause. (and they can be convinced to do this based on in-person testimony / hearsay).
Here's an example of one of these seizure warrants in the 2018 takedown of ToKnowAll by the FBI. The request was sent in on Tuesday and was granted the next day.
The process is actually simple and outlined in the warrant itself.
1. The government agency finds the domain registrar hosting the target domain, which must be under its jurisdiction.
2. The Magistrate Judge must find probable cause a crime has been committed and agree on the seizure.
3. The agency then serves the registrar with a seizure warrant, in which the registrar is required to shift registration of that domain to the agency
Is This Even Effective?
By now you must realize that this doesn't actually scrub the content off the internet, it merely makes it inaccessible by its domain name. New domains can be registered in its place, and the IP address can be even be bookmarked by individuals for later use.
Additionally, this domain seizure practice is heavy handed and can be inaccurate. The Center for Democracy & Technology pointed out one case of mistaken seizure targeting a parent domain of thousands of other individual & separate sites.
There's even been instances of the operating taking down legal sites in foreign countries. In 2011, ICE seized a domain from RojaDirecta, a sports streaming site which was declared legal in Spain. A international legal battle ensued which led ICE to give it back.
We must wonder why we allow these practices to continue. It is wrong to have domains seized on ‘probable cause’ without due process. It happens without warning from the owners, and destroys the value of the domain by directing users to splash pages accusing the owners of crimes.
In the second & final part of this article, we will discuss how countries like China implement country-wide censorship and how individuals & developers can utilize old & new technologies to avoid being walled in.
🧱🧱🌤
Read more at @neo_network
Discuss with digital warriors at @neo_network_chat
Forwarded from NoGoolag
How the Russian government accidentally blocked its own websites
Reminder: Internet censorship can have unintended consequences.
Russian internet users began noticing something strange on Wednesday: a number of websites, including the Kremlin’s own Kremlin.ru, were down. Just hours earlier, Roskomnadzor, the Russian government body overseeing communications and technology, announced that it was purposely slowing down access to Twitter, claiming the company had allowed over 3,000 posts featuring suicide, child exploitation, and drug use to remain up in violation of Russian law.
But the outage that followed affected far more than just the social media site, including domains like Reddit.com and Microsoft.com. The Russian government appears to have bungled its latest attempt at internet censorship, accidentally blocking its own websites in the process. And this isn’t even the first time it’s made a similar mistake in the last few years.
“With the aim of protecting Russian citizens and forcing the internet service to follow the law on the territory of the Russian Federation, centralized responses have been taken against Twitter starting March 10, 2021 — specifically, the initial throttling of the service’s speeds, in accordance with the regulations,” Roskomnadzor said in a statement.
https://restofworld.org/2021/how-the-russian-government-accidentally-blocked-access-to-its-own-websites/
#russia #censorship
Reminder: Internet censorship can have unintended consequences.
Russian internet users began noticing something strange on Wednesday: a number of websites, including the Kremlin’s own Kremlin.ru, were down. Just hours earlier, Roskomnadzor, the Russian government body overseeing communications and technology, announced that it was purposely slowing down access to Twitter, claiming the company had allowed over 3,000 posts featuring suicide, child exploitation, and drug use to remain up in violation of Russian law.
But the outage that followed affected far more than just the social media site, including domains like Reddit.com and Microsoft.com. The Russian government appears to have bungled its latest attempt at internet censorship, accidentally blocking its own websites in the process. And this isn’t even the first time it’s made a similar mistake in the last few years.
“With the aim of protecting Russian citizens and forcing the internet service to follow the law on the territory of the Russian Federation, centralized responses have been taken against Twitter starting March 10, 2021 — specifically, the initial throttling of the service’s speeds, in accordance with the regulations,” Roskomnadzor said in a statement.
https://restofworld.org/2021/how-the-russian-government-accidentally-blocked-access-to-its-own-websites/
#russia #censorship
Rest of World
How the Russian government accidentally blocked its own websites
Reminder: Internet censorship can have unintended consequences.
image_2021-03-11_19-49-12.png
383.8 KB
freedomcells.org isn't blocked in China! I wonder how we can invite more people from PRC.
Another late night of researching & writing. I've almost finished with this article but I am not satisfied with the solution section. I'd like more time to test the solutions myself and relay the instructions back to y'all. I'll postpone Pt. II of this article until tomorrow then.
Cheers :)
Cheers :)
Wanting to get some feedback on article format, what type of article are you most likely to READ & SHARE?
Anonymous Poll
54%
Shorter section of article under 300 words
16%
Headlines / short teasers with pictures
30%
Long-form articles spanning multiple long messages with links
Are We On The Brink Of An Internet Apocalypse: Part 2
@neo_network
🌏☄️🤯
What originally was a two part article has turned into a three part article. I've taken feedback from readers and decided to break these articles up into more manageable chunks, i.e: daily posts that are actually digestible.
Another change I'd like to make, is rather than just providing information around the subject of research, I'd also like to provide step by step walk-throughs that can be used to protect yourself. So although content will take longer to get out, it'll be more valuable to us.
The solution part of this series will be in part 3 - so stay tuned. :)
In the first part of this series, we explore how western powers conduct domain seizures to protect the world from dastardly counterfeiters. Ironically enough, the leading counterfeiters reside in the People's Republic of China, which maintains one of the largest & most sophisticated censorship networks in the world.
We lovingly refer to this system as the Great Firewall of China. It was born of the Golden Shield project in 1996, only a few years after the internet was introduced to China. The intention for this firewall was to allow China to benefit from internet commerce while still maintaining the integrity of the state, disallowing any information that might harm the PRC constitution or promote social disorder. After 24 years, the wall stretched to surround everyone who uses the internet in China, which is a few hairs away from one billion people, or one-fifth of everyone using the internet today.
It has been challenging to understand how the firewall treats each individual request, mainly because of the arsenal of strategies the firewall uses, but researchers have uncovered a good amount of information on how it works.
Just like an actual wall, all communication in and out of mainland China is directed through traffic exchange points and then analyzed by the nodes of the great firewall. In this analysis phase, the firewall performs passive & active analysis.
Back when most web traffic was unencrypted, it was easy for the firewall to read the HTTP request header hosts and methods, for instance:
Host: www.youtube.com
GET /
Using a massive dictionary of keywords that listed banned sites, domains and keywords the firewall could tell when someone broke the rules. As HTTPS grew in popularity, this became harder. Yet, because a Server Name Indication (SNI) field is always sent first to declare a destination host for the TLS handshake, it could still be used to drop connections.
The advent of ESNI & ECH (Encrypted Client Hello) in an extension to the latest version of the TLS standard allows this first message to be encrypted so that the handshake process cannot be understood by anyone in between. The requesting computer must first retrieve the server's public key (either through DNS or by other means), and then can generate a one-time key to start the encryption process.
This has been damaging enough to the firewall that China straight up started rejecting ESNI traffic outright in late July of 2020 as an update to the Great Firewall.
Using the headers in unencrypted traffic, and the SNI fields in pre 1.3 traffic to identify threats, the firewall can actively break connections in a few ways. There's the TCP reset attack, where the firewall forges messages back to either party telling them to stop the connection. So although the firewall cannot stop the first packets from getting through, it can terminate the connection by injecting packets immediately after.
There's also BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) tampering, which allows large groups the size of internet service providers (Autonomous Systems) to misroute requests to a specific IP addresses. The firewall can direct outgoing traffic to blacklisted locations to ‘nowhere’, null-routing or hijacking the requests. This requires a freshly updated list of blocked IP addresses and has the danger of blocking other sites that happen to share similar addresses.
@neo_network
🌏☄️🤯
What originally was a two part article has turned into a three part article. I've taken feedback from readers and decided to break these articles up into more manageable chunks, i.e: daily posts that are actually digestible.
Another change I'd like to make, is rather than just providing information around the subject of research, I'd also like to provide step by step walk-throughs that can be used to protect yourself. So although content will take longer to get out, it'll be more valuable to us.
The solution part of this series will be in part 3 - so stay tuned. :)
In the first part of this series, we explore how western powers conduct domain seizures to protect the world from dastardly counterfeiters. Ironically enough, the leading counterfeiters reside in the People's Republic of China, which maintains one of the largest & most sophisticated censorship networks in the world.
We lovingly refer to this system as the Great Firewall of China. It was born of the Golden Shield project in 1996, only a few years after the internet was introduced to China. The intention for this firewall was to allow China to benefit from internet commerce while still maintaining the integrity of the state, disallowing any information that might harm the PRC constitution or promote social disorder. After 24 years, the wall stretched to surround everyone who uses the internet in China, which is a few hairs away from one billion people, or one-fifth of everyone using the internet today.
It has been challenging to understand how the firewall treats each individual request, mainly because of the arsenal of strategies the firewall uses, but researchers have uncovered a good amount of information on how it works.
Just like an actual wall, all communication in and out of mainland China is directed through traffic exchange points and then analyzed by the nodes of the great firewall. In this analysis phase, the firewall performs passive & active analysis.
Back when most web traffic was unencrypted, it was easy for the firewall to read the HTTP request header hosts and methods, for instance:
Host: www.youtube.com
GET /
Using a massive dictionary of keywords that listed banned sites, domains and keywords the firewall could tell when someone broke the rules. As HTTPS grew in popularity, this became harder. Yet, because a Server Name Indication (SNI) field is always sent first to declare a destination host for the TLS handshake, it could still be used to drop connections.
The advent of ESNI & ECH (Encrypted Client Hello) in an extension to the latest version of the TLS standard allows this first message to be encrypted so that the handshake process cannot be understood by anyone in between. The requesting computer must first retrieve the server's public key (either through DNS or by other means), and then can generate a one-time key to start the encryption process.
This has been damaging enough to the firewall that China straight up started rejecting ESNI traffic outright in late July of 2020 as an update to the Great Firewall.
Using the headers in unencrypted traffic, and the SNI fields in pre 1.3 traffic to identify threats, the firewall can actively break connections in a few ways. There's the TCP reset attack, where the firewall forges messages back to either party telling them to stop the connection. So although the firewall cannot stop the first packets from getting through, it can terminate the connection by injecting packets immediately after.
There's also BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) tampering, which allows large groups the size of internet service providers (Autonomous Systems) to misroute requests to a specific IP addresses. The firewall can direct outgoing traffic to blacklisted locations to ‘nowhere’, null-routing or hijacking the requests. This requires a freshly updated list of blocked IP addresses and has the danger of blocking other sites that happen to share similar addresses.
One of the oldest and common attacks is DNS injection. DNS injection forges replies back to the requestors of blacklisted sites. This can even effect caches & routing outside of the country. As of October 2020, the GFW blocks close to a million domains and 3000 known keywords. You can actually check if a site is blocked in China using tools like GreatFire Analyzer.
In the third part of this article, we'll go step by step through how you can protect yourself from both Western & Eastern censorship methods.
Read more: @neo_network
Discuss at: @neo_network_chat
In the third part of this article, we'll go step by step through how you can protect yourself from both Western & Eastern censorship methods.
Read more: @neo_network
Discuss at: @neo_network_chat
Protonmail Interview
⚛️⚛️⚛️
@neo_network
Y'all may remember the ProtonMail article on @theconsciousresistance that made some waves. ProtonMail reached out to correct the record and we tried to setup a livestream to hear their side of the story.
They aren't willing to take live interviews, but they have written up a response for us. Derrick Broze & I will go over this response and discuss further on a video segment Friday 3/19 next week.
This is my first live interview (with many more planned) and I'll be live streaming on the @neo_network as well!
I have many more announcements in store for you. See you on the next-hop.
Read more: @neo_network
Discuss at: @neo_network_chat
⚛️⚛️⚛️
@neo_network
Y'all may remember the ProtonMail article on @theconsciousresistance that made some waves. ProtonMail reached out to correct the record and we tried to setup a livestream to hear their side of the story.
They aren't willing to take live interviews, but they have written up a response for us. Derrick Broze & I will go over this response and discuss further on a video segment Friday 3/19 next week.
This is my first live interview (with many more planned) and I'll be live streaming on the @neo_network as well!
I have many more announcements in store for you. See you on the next-hop.
Read more: @neo_network
Discuss at: @neo_network_chat
Forwarded from The Free Thought Project
Most people still think taxation is the basis of civilized society. Nothing could be further from the truth. Taxation funds all the undesirable aspects of society which is why it has to be extracted with violence or threat of violence.
Good ideas don't require force.
#TaxationIsTheft
#TheFreeThoughtProject
Good ideas don't require force.
#TaxationIsTheft
#TheFreeThoughtProject
Forwarded from BlackBox (Security) Archiv
Mass Extraction: The Widespread Power of U.S. Law Enforcement to Search Mobile Phones
Every day, law enforcement agencies across the country search thousands of cellphones, typically incident to arrest. To search phones, law enforcement agencies use mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs), a powerful technology that allows police to extract a full copy of data from a cellphone — all emails, texts, photos, location, app data, and more — which can then be programmatically searched. As one expert puts it, with the amount of sensitive information stored on smartphones today, the tools provide a “window into the soul.”
This report documents the widespread adoption of MDFTs by law enforcement in the United States. Based on 110 public records requests to state and local law enforcement agencies across the country, our research documents more than 2,000 agencies that have purchased these tools, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We found that state and local law enforcement agencies have performed hundreds of thousands of cellphone extractions since 2015, often without a warrant. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such records have been widely disclosed.
Every American is at risk of having their phone forensically searched by law enforcement.
https://www.upturn.org/reports/2020/mass-extraction/
💡 Read as well:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/fbi-should-stop-attacking-encryption-and-tell-congress-about-all-encrypted-phones
#usa #fbi #lawenforcement #massextraction #MDFT #mobilephones #cellphones #encryption #decryption #study #thinkabout
📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR
📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_EN
📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_DE
📡@BlackBox_Archiv
📡@NoGoolag
Every day, law enforcement agencies across the country search thousands of cellphones, typically incident to arrest. To search phones, law enforcement agencies use mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs), a powerful technology that allows police to extract a full copy of data from a cellphone — all emails, texts, photos, location, app data, and more — which can then be programmatically searched. As one expert puts it, with the amount of sensitive information stored on smartphones today, the tools provide a “window into the soul.”
This report documents the widespread adoption of MDFTs by law enforcement in the United States. Based on 110 public records requests to state and local law enforcement agencies across the country, our research documents more than 2,000 agencies that have purchased these tools, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We found that state and local law enforcement agencies have performed hundreds of thousands of cellphone extractions since 2015, often without a warrant. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such records have been widely disclosed.
Every American is at risk of having their phone forensically searched by law enforcement.
https://www.upturn.org/reports/2020/mass-extraction/
💡 Read as well:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/fbi-should-stop-attacking-encryption-and-tell-congress-about-all-encrypted-phones
#usa #fbi #lawenforcement #massextraction #MDFT #mobilephones #cellphones #encryption #decryption #study #thinkabout
📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR
📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_EN
📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_DE
📡@BlackBox_Archiv
📡@NoGoolag
Upturn
Mass Extraction | Upturn
This report is the most comprehensive examination of U.S. law enforcement’s use of mobile device forensic tools.
We almost lost management of the .org top level domain to a venture capitalist firm (Ethos Capital) last year. Imagine what that could potentially mean to non-profit sites zoned within, raising yearly prices for the .org domain
We're not out of the woods yet, it just goes to show that the Internet Society is open to external influences through funding. They control the .org contract till 2029, and ICANN is unlikely to strip the rights from them.
What censorship resistant domains can we go to next?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/victory-icann-rejects-org-sale-private-equity-firm-ethos-capital
We're not out of the woods yet, it just goes to show that the Internet Society is open to external influences through funding. They control the .org contract till 2029, and ICANN is unlikely to strip the rights from them.
What censorship resistant domains can we go to next?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/victory-icann-rejects-org-sale-private-equity-firm-ethos-capital
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Victory! ICANN Rejects .ORG Sale to Private Equity Firm Ethos Capital
In a stunning victory for nonprofits and NGOs around the world working in the public interest, ICANN today roundly rejected Ethos Capital’s plan to transform the .ORG domain registry into a heavily
Update on the ProtonMail interview with @theconsciousresistance - it will now take place Monday, 3/23 at 6 PM and it'll be live-streamed :)
More details & links to come.
More details & links to come.
Is anyone interested in hearing the ProtonMail interview on a Telegram live voice chat?
https://telegram.org/blog/voice-chats-on-steroids
https://telegram.org/blog/voice-chats-on-steroids
Telegram
Voice Chats 2.0: Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats, Admin Tools
Voice Chats first appeared in December, adding a new dimension of live talk to Telegram groups. Starting today, they become available in channels too – and there are no more limits on the number of participants. This update also brings recordable voice chats…
ProtonMail, Encrypted Email, and Trust
@neo_network
@theconsciousresistance
🔓✉️👀
6 PM CST @ https://theconsciousresistance.com/live/
Join me today at the Conscious Resistance Live! I'll be interviewed by Derrick Broze, we'll be discussing the article I wrote previously on ProtonMail and the official response to it.
Not only will we explore the technical and legal email environment, but we'll also look at other secure solutions that can be relied on.
See you on the next-hop.
@neo_network
@theconsciousresistance
🔓✉️👀
6 PM CST @ https://theconsciousresistance.com/live/
Join me today at the Conscious Resistance Live! I'll be interviewed by Derrick Broze, we'll be discussing the article I wrote previously on ProtonMail and the official response to it.
Not only will we explore the technical and legal email environment, but we'll also look at other secure solutions that can be relied on.
See you on the next-hop.
The Conscious Resistance Network
The Conscious Resistance Network Live Broadcasts - The Conscious Resistance Network
Forwarded from Derrick Broze's Daily News
"It is important to point out that these news outlets are all under the USA Today Network and the articles are all written by the same two people, Marco della Cava and Mike Stucka. While it is certainly not surprising for a news network to push similar stories to its various outlets, the way this is done is not at all transparent.
Not one of these news outlets is named USA Today. Outside of the small text which says they are apart of the USA Today Network, they all appear entirely independent and have vastly different names like the Tallahassee Democrat or Greenville News, The Elmwood City Ledger, and The Chronicle Express.
When multiple news outlets, who put on the appearance of independence, all run the exact same piece which essentially calls for gun control by fear mongering over mass shootings, this is not a free press. This is a controlled press who is apparently being given narratives to push out to their readers based on some entity’s centralized vision."
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mainstream-media-exposed-coordinating-identical-mass-shooting-narratives-for-different-states/
Not one of these news outlets is named USA Today. Outside of the small text which says they are apart of the USA Today Network, they all appear entirely independent and have vastly different names like the Tallahassee Democrat or Greenville News, The Elmwood City Ledger, and The Chronicle Express.
When multiple news outlets, who put on the appearance of independence, all run the exact same piece which essentially calls for gun control by fear mongering over mass shootings, this is not a free press. This is a controlled press who is apparently being given narratives to push out to their readers based on some entity’s centralized vision."
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/mainstream-media-exposed-coordinating-identical-mass-shooting-narratives-for-different-states/
The Free Thought Project
Mainstream Media Exposed Coordinating Identical Mass Shooting Narratives for Different States
Dozens of mainstream outlets across the country are running an identical narrative on a "rise in mass shootings" which is being used to push gun control.
Forwarded from The People's Reset Activation
We are stoked to start sharing the speakers for The Greater Reset Activation 2 and D3! So excited... stay tuned!
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Would you wear special reflective glasses to avoid detection from infrared facial recognition cameras?
With the rise of facial recognition, temperature scanning, and 3D imaging being used in public places and even becoming popular at private businesses, this could provide a little defense.
https://www.reflectacles.com/
With the rise of facial recognition, temperature scanning, and 3D imaging being used in public places and even becoming popular at private businesses, this could provide a little defense.
https://www.reflectacles.com/
If only I had one of these drones to keep an eye on those pesky mail drones.