Excerpts Science Fantasy Read an Excerpt From A.C. Wise’s Out of the Drowning Deep Dreamy, queer science-fantasy novella for fans of Becky Chambers and This is How You Lose the Time War. By A.C. Wise | Published on August 29, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share We’re thrilled to share an excerpt from Out of the Drowning Deep, a new science fantasy novella by A.C. Wise, publishing with Titan Books on September 3rd. Scribe IV is an obsolete automaton living on the Bastion, a secluded monastery in an abandoned corner of the galaxy. When the visiting Pope is found murdered, Scribe IV knows he has very little time before the terrifying Sisters of the Drowned Deep rise up to punish all the Bastion’s residents for their supposed crime.Quin, a recovering drug addict turned private investigator, agrees to take the case. Traumatized by abizarre experience in his childhood, Quin repeatedly feeds his memories to his lover, the angel Murmuration. But fragmented glimpses of an otherworldly horror he calls the crawling dark continue to haunt his dreams.Meanwhile in heaven, an angel named Angel hears Scribe IV’s prayer. Intrigued by the idea of solving a crime with mortals, xe descends to offer xyr divine assistance.With the Drowned Sisters closing in, Scribe IV, Quin, and Angel race to find out who really murdered the Pope, and why. Quin’s missing memories may hold the key to the case—but is remembering worth what it will cost him? The pinging alert took an insistent hammer to Quin’s dream, smashing it to pieces. “Fuck off.” He pulled the thin pillow over his head and folded it around his ears. “Voice command not recognized.” “I said fuck… Never mind.” Too late; he was awake. He threw the pillow across the room and sat up, slapping the alert into a pillar of light projected from the table beside his bed. “To any unaffiliated investigator…” A surge of adrenaline shot through him. Quin was fully awake now. If he could scoop this job before anyone else… He needed the credits, gods knew. “… Bastion…” The Bastion, where in days of old, gods were raised. Buy the Book Out of the Drowning Deep A.C. Wise Buy Book Out of the Drowning Deep A.C. Wise Buy this book from: AmazonBarnes and NobleiBooksIndieBoundTarget A ringing in his ears swept the rest of the message away. Something approaching panic gripped him, though he couldn’t think why. Where gods… He shook himself, focusing. The message repeated, text scrolling around the image like a halo, a variety of languages spoken and written, morse code pulsing like a heartbeat. He squinted at the image in the light, the message’s sender. An automaton. An old-fashioned word for an old-fashioned model of synthetic being, but it fit. Its delicate face, a hammered mask of serenity polished to a high shine, a frame wrought like the bones of a human skeleton, revealing between them the delicate inner workings of crystals, wires and gears, couldn’t belong to anything as crude as a bot. It had to be an automaton, a mechanical wonder from another time. A relic surpassed by other forms of AI, nanites and super-computers, but also lovely, made for the sake of beauty as much as efficiency. Not just a highly intelligent machine, but a creation meant to honor the gods. Or to mock them, depending who you asked. Scribe IV. Quin read the designation and a tattered memory surfaced from the recesses of his mind. The case of a missing child who’d claimed sanctuary at the Bastion, maybe five, six years ago—hadn’t he met a Scribe IV then? He’d been working steadily at the time, but not always sober. The details were hazy, a result of the pixie dust, or the simple ravages of time. Or— Quin cut the last branch of thought off before it had a chance to bloom. He’d been clean three years now. Following that line any further would only bring the temptation to slip back into old habits. Bad ones. He composed a hasty reply—his fee and the terms of his standard agreement—and fired it off. The reply bounced, as if it had struck a wall. An attempted diagnostic brought a squall of sound—unsound—crawling up his jawbone, curling with loving brutality around the base of his skull, drawing headache tears to his eyes. “The fuck?” Why call for help and then slam up a firewall blocking all replies? Unless the signal jam came from elsewhere. Quin didn’t need more than one guess at who that might be. The Sisters of the Deep, claiming whatever mystery lay in the Bastion for their own. Rumor had it they’d been after control of the Bastion for years. This—whatever it was—might just be the excuse they needed to seize it. Their justice would be swift and wouldn’t look like justice at all to any eyes but their own. “Fine. We’ll do it the old-fashioned way.” Because someone telling Quin not to only made him want to dig in harder. Prayer, pure and simple. The surest way to get an angel’s attention, to goad or compel them into action. And most importantly, a form of communication the Sisters couldn’t lock down. Quin set an incense cone to burn, and folded himself onto the floor, palms resting on his thighs, eyes closed. Once his prayer had been heard by the angels, it would also be conveyed to and recorded by the Bastion’s Scribe. Not the most secure communication network, but Quin was aiming to be overheard. Who else but an automaton in a rotting outpost on the edge of a dying world even paid attention to prayers anymore? Who else would be listening specifically for his prayers, except— No. He wouldn’t even let himself think it; he’d promised Lena. Mind clear. Breath—in, out. Focus on intent. He didn’t want to invite attention, only convey a message. Mind clear. Don’t think about anything. Don’t think about— —the chapel. Light oozing through scant cracks in the boards sealed over the window to keep— Breath—in, out, shallower now. Quin fought to bring it back under control. Ignoring the sweat prickling under his arms, panic wanting to rise like the Sisters’ tolling, buzzing, crawling jamming signal that still echoed in his bones. Hold it together. Remember to breathe. Shut out the thud of his pulse and the— —aisle between the worn pews, knees bruised with supplication,palms together as in prayer, but the litany in his mind only don’t notice me, don’t notice me, don’t notice me, lest the god of his father— Quin’s eyes snapped open, his breath drawing incense unwittingly into his lungs, leading to violent coughing. His eyes watered for a different reason now, washing out the last memory of the Sisters’ denial of his message. Washing out whatever else had tried to come through, tried to crawl up from the part of his mind that remembered his nightmares. Because that’s all it had been. A nightmare. The images went skittering back into those dark corners, and Quin breathed out. There was no way to know whether his prayer had gone through, or who else might be listening. All he could do was hope. A use for faith in a world of concrete proof, after all. Excerpted from Out of the Drowning Deep, copyright © 2024 by A.C. Wise. The post Read an Excerpt From A.C. Wise’s <i>Out of the Drowning Deep</i> appeared first on Reactor.

The war in Ukraine continues to rage on 2 1/2 years after Russian forces breached their neighbor’s borders. The protraction of the conflict has only made a Russian victory—through a favorable settlement or Ukrainian surrender—more likely, though it will come at a much higher cost to the Russians than originally anticipated by both Moscow and Washington. The simple truth is that Russia has more men, more resources, and is not reliant on the goodwill of Western benefactors. While continued aid from the United States keeps the Ukrainian war effort afloat, that aid has come with certain strings attached. U.S. weapons given to Ukraine, for example, cannot be used to strike targets within Russian territory. Whether Ukraine has upheld its end of the bargain is unlikely. Ukraine has privately received permission from President Joe Biden to use U.S. weapons in strikes on Russia in the past. Now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is looking to negotiate, not with Russia but with the United States and other benefactors, to permanently loosen those restraints. While Zelenskyy has made a habit of making this request, he did so again fervently on Monday after Russia launched one of its largest drone and missile strikes of the campaign so far. In a video statement posted to X on Monday, Zelenskyy said the Russian strike “involv[ed] over a hundred missiles of various types and around a hundred ‘Shaheds’ [attack drones].” Targets included energy infrastructure installations, such as the hydroelectric plant of the Dnieper River dam at Vyshhorod, resulting in some power outages. Currently, across the country, efforts are underway to eliminate the consequences of the Russian strike. This was one of the largest attacks – a combined strike, involving over a hundred missiles of various types and around a hundred “Shaheds.” Like most Russian strikes before,… pic.twitter.com/0qNTGR98rR— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / ????????? ?????????? (@ZelenskyyUa) August 26, 2024 “We must finally unite in our efforts to shoot down Russian missiles and drones,” Zelenskyy continued. “Across Ukraine, we could do much more to protect lives if the aviation of our European neighbors operated in concert with our F-16s and air defense systems. If such unity has proven effective in the Middle East, it must work in Europe, too. Life holds the same value everywhere.” “Every leader, every one of our partners, knows the decisive actions required to end this war justly. Ukraine cannot be constrained in its long-range capabilities when the terrorists face no such limitations,” Zelenskyy added. “Our defenders cannot be restricted in their weapons when Russia deploys its entire arsenal, including ‘Shaheds’ and ballistic missiles from North Korea. America, Britain, France, and our other partners have the power to help us stop this terror. The time for decisive action is now.” Some in Washington are not pleased with Zelenskyy’s repeated asks, nor are they pleased with the current administration’s unwillingness to tell Zelenskyy “no” publicly. “For more than two years, the U.S. and NATO partners have done nothing but concede to Ukraine’s demands for cash handouts and increasingly more sophisticated weapons,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Daily Signal. “This pattern of appeasement has shown Zelenskyy that ‘no’ is never a final answer and that nothing is off the table. That’s exactly why he is now comfortable pressuring the U.S. to lift restrictions on using long-range weapons to strike Russian territory, and he has every reason to believe the Biden-Harris administration will eventually give in.” “Zelenskyy’s newest demands are consistent with his asks for the past two years and show clearly that he is comfortable fighting this war as long as the U.S. is willing to back him,” Lee added. “The U.S. has endless leverage at its disposal here, but the Biden-Harris administration refuses to use it and instead continues to prop up a military that could not stand on its own.” The Daily Signal asked George Beebe, the director of grand strategy for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, why Ukraine is pushing to use U.S. weapons on Russian targets. “One reason is that Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition, which is what Russia has been waging for the bulk of the war to date. Ukraine lacks sufficient manpower and military industry for this to be a viable path toward Ukrainian victory, and the West cannot make up for Ukraine’s deficits relative to Russia,” Beebe said. “So Ukraine has to turn this into a shorter war of maneuver that capitalizes on superior Western technology and advanced battlefield intelligence. Kyiv hopes that a sustained campaign of deep strikes into Russia will help to transform the war to Ukraine’s advantage.” Beyond Zelenskyy’s Monday statement, the Ukrainians appear to be using their recent sally into the Russian city of Kursk to justify changing the terms of engagement for U.S. weaponry, even though this advance pales in comparison to Russian territorial gains.  “The Kursk incursion has more political than military logic behind it,” Beebe claimed of the Ukrainian offensive. “Ukraine cannot realistically hope to capture and hold strategically significant Russian territory for very long—it lacks the air power, air defense, logistical support, and manpower advantages this would require.” “[Zelenskyy’s] aim may be temporarily to bolster hopes in Ukraine and the West, buy some time, and show that he has left no stone unturned in seeking victory on the battlefield before some painful compromises become necessary,” Beebe told The Daily Signal. If the U.S. falls for the maneuver and publicly approves Ukraine’s request, the U.S. could quickly find itself in direct confrontation with Russia. “Ukraine wants to drag the United States directly into the conflict with Russia,” he continued, because “Ukraine cannot defeat Russia one-on-one.” “Its best hope is to get direct American involvement on the battlefield, and provoking Russian retaliation against NATO bases or facilities may be Kyiv’s best bet for forcing Washington into the battle,” he said. “For the Zelenskyy administration, the incentives are clear: more,” The American Conservative Executive Director Curt Mills told The Daily Signal of Zelenskyy’s latest attempt to get approval from Washington to strike targets in Russia with U.S. weapons. “The Ukrainian president has put himself in a position where he cannot rest easy as long as Vladimir Putin lives. While that is sympathetic on a human level, it’s not a price that should be paid with global security. Zelenskyy is still partying like it’s 2022 and will never stop roaring for regime change in Russia as long as Washington permits him.” “The Zelenskyy state will do whatever it takes to survive,” Mills said. “It’s understandable,” Mills added, “but this can go awry.” Lee believes “the Biden-Harris administration has no strategy and has been playing a dangerous game testing Russian limits.” “Two years ago, we were talking about giving Ukraine a striking range of 50 miles exclusively within their own territory and now, we’re openly allowing our weapons to be used inside of Russia with incrementally greater range—an astonishing shift that only further demonstrates the ineptitude of the Biden-Harris administration,” Lee added. While Zelenskyy has long requested more capabilities with U.S. weapons, Beebe said that “Zelenskyy’s demands reflect his judgments about how best to manage popular and elite opinion in Ukraine, his confidence in America’s willingness to sustain large-scale support, and the course of the war on the battlefield.” If the U.S. rebuffs Zelenskyy, his demands may change “as those variables change—and they are all shifting, though gradually for now.” Just how much Zelenskyy changes, however, remains to be seen. “It’s unclear Zelenskyy will ever be party to an armistice,” Mills told The Daily Signal. “There’s precedent for this. In the Korean War, the U.S. had to keep the fanatic South Korean leader Syngman Rhee out of the room.” If the war is to end sooner rather than later, the change will likely have to come from Washington in a new administration. Beebe identified “three possible courses of action” for a Trump or Harris administration to take in 2025. The first is going all in with Zelenskyy: “The U.S. could escalate the war and risk direct conflict with Russia.” The second is to maintain the status quo. “[The U.S.] could refuse either to escalate or negotiate, leaving Ukraine in an unsettled conflict that diminishes in intensity over time but renders the nation dysfunctional and incapable of reconstruction,” Beebe claimed. The final option, however, is making the necessary trade-offs to bring the war to a close. The next administration “could seek a compromise that enshrines Ukraine’s geopolitical neutrality in return for its economic reconstruction and a path toward the European Union,” Beebe said, “an outcome that will only be possible if the United States plays an active role in orchestrating all the complex diplomacy required.” Mills is a strong proponent for Beebe’s third way: “We needed an armistice yesterday. A President Trump or President Harris should simply put an end to Washington’s latest fiasco.” “For more than two years, the U.S. has allowed Ukraine to entertain a fantasy of victory without concessions and singularly on Ukraine’s terms. That’s just simply not the reality of war, and until the U.S. awakens Ukraine from its slumber, the conflict will drag on with empty platitudes of ‘progress’ and ‘peace plans,’” Lee told The Daily Signal. A new administration, Lee suggests, has the opportunity to do just that. “The next administration needs to make it a Day-One priority to establish a strategy for Ukraine, driven only by U.S. interests and with full awareness of the strategic trade-offs involved in supporting Ukraine at the expense of higher priority theaters. Parallel to a coherent strategy, the next administration needs to be immediately candid with Zelenskyy that the days of appeasement are over, that U.S. weapons may not be used inside Russia, and that any future U.S. aid will be contingent upon peace negotiations.” The post Zelenskyy Demands Using US Weapons on Targets in Russia appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It is an undeniable reality that children are the custodians of our future, destined to shape the world we leave behind. Children indisputably hold the responsibility of safeguarding our future and have the inherent potential to influence the world we will ultimately pass on. It is an obvious fact that our children will become our leaders in the future, succeeding us, as well as their own descendants and subsequent generations. A nation that desires its leaders to continue the lessons learned in the past must educate them accordingly. This is why developed nations expend a significant portion of their gross domestic product on education, and it is why terrorist states teach their children the ideologies of their terror groups. The United States allocates 6.1% of its gross domestic product toward education. The U.S. is ranked 36th globally based on this number. However, it is comparable to the expenditure levels of most major developed nations. But money isn’t everything. Investing billions of dollars in education would be futile if the curricula provided to students are insufficient. This is the reason why we observe poor educational outcomes in many low-income neighborhoods, where a large amount of money is invested per student but performance is below that of neighborhoods spending less per student. Despite its status as one of the lowest-performing school districts in the nation, Baltimore County Public Schools allocates approximately $22,424 per student. Most problems in Baltimore County can be attributed to cyclical poverty and the prevalence of single-parent households. However, numerous school districts throughout the country are grappling with an even more pervasive problem: a problem of progressive, left-leaning curricula that pose a significant threat to the longevity of our nation. Over the past decade, our children have been exposed to a range of politically charged curricula. Many schools have incorporated lessons that center around critical race theory, which posits that Whites subconsciously act as oppressors toward minority groups. We have also witnessed unsettling phenomena such as drag story time, in which men, dressed in revealing attire, read books while in close proximity to children. We have seen situations where pornographic literature has been made mandatory reading material for children in kindergarten. We have observed a range of LGBTQ propaganda disguised as fundamental education for our children. It is a common observation that implementing woke equity- and inclusion-based policies in education often leads to negative outcomes for children. The problem with woke education lies not in the values that children are taught. Indeed, those values are commendable, and we should strive to embody them: respect, compassion, inclusion, fairness. However, what is truly worrisome is the method and substance of these lessons. Prior to the inclusion of critical race theory and transgenderism in school curricula, students learned about equality and acceptance through stories such as those of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other accounts of racism and oppression. Any child would find it challenging to read about the atrocities of slavery and Jim Crow and not feel anger toward the unjust treatment of blacks solely due to their skin color. However, with the implementation of woke curriculum, the mere act of accepting individuals irrespective of their skin color or gender identity is not enough. Having reached a collective understanding of accepting individuals as they are, it seems we are now required to take further action. Apparently, we must recognize that even children can contribute to the oppression of blacks. Apparently, accepting LGBTQ individuals is not enough. We must also exert all efforts to embrace it in our lives. Advocates of this form of education contend that early exposure to these subjects will result in students becoming more responsible members of society, and it will cause them to pursue more equitable goals as they become our leaders. The reality is shockingly different, however. For example, a staggering number of kids who have been exposed to LGBTQ curriculum have undergone gender transition. Additionally, a significant number of these children opt for surgical intervention, which involves mutilating their genitalia. It is a fact that individuals who undergo gender transition experience alterations not only in their personality but also in their physical appearance and physiological characteristics. Doctors administer growth hormones. They cut off genitals. It’s no coincidence that the increased number of gender transitions has coincided with an increase in LGBTQ subjects being taught very early on in school. What might be the underlying cause of the sudden rise in transgenderism? Could it be the result of humanity suddenly evolving into a more gender-fluid collective? Or is it more plausible that children are being instructed in these lessons from a very young age to the extent that if they ever experience a fleeting desire to identify with the opposite gender, they assume it will be a permanent state of comfort? The problem lies in the inclusion of lessons on racial oppression and transgenderism in the school curriculum. They are too complicated for children. Children don’t think in complex terms—everything is simple for them. A child will not consider the long-term impact of gender transition; he or she will instead consider how it may help at the present moment. Education should prioritize teaching fundamental principles rather than focusing on specific doctrines. It would be extremely easy to educate children on the importance of accepting individuals irrespective of their race, sex, national origin, religion, age, or gender identity without leaning too far into the topic. The woke curriculum poses a significant national security threat, extending beyond its impact on individual children. We are producing inept leaders, and even more inept people will elect those leaders. We have reached a stage where people passionately express their endorsement for a presidential candidate solely based on their stance on issues such as CRT, abortion, and transgenderism—matters that have no direct impact on the prosperity of our nation and its citizens. Other world superpowers such as Russia and China do not include these topics in their school curriculum. This is because they are aware that these concepts have a detrimental effect on society. These concepts act as uncontrollable forces that gradually weaken people’s moral values and lead to unresolvable social crises at a national level. Russia and China are keenly aware that power lies in a citizenry that doesn’t fight itself over petty issues like Americans do. Now states like California, and likely many other states that will follow suit, want wokeness to extend beyond the classroom and into the home by, as California did, prohibiting school personnel from notifying parents when their child decides to change genders. Many advocates are pushing for the removal of children from parents’ custody if the parents refuse to acknowledge and support their children’s gender identity—because apparently upending parental rights and a child-parent relationship to stick a child in the foster care system is a much better idea. The perpetuation of indoctrination will persist in schools; there is no end in sight, and there likely never will be. Therefore, parents today must be increasingly vigilant and inquisitive when it comes to their young children. A straightforward and potent tool in combating indoctrination through woke education is a basic question every parent should ask his or her child: “What did you learn in school today?” COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post ‘What Did You Learn in School Today?’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Following the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, attention from individual citizens, to the media, to nation states has been focused on the app and the nature of its encryption and privacy. Telegram, which boasts almost a billion users, bills itself as an encrypted messaging app and, while this is true, understanding the app’s privacy requires a little more nuance, especially following Durov’s arrest. The term “encryption” is often used broadly, but in the realm of private messaging services, it usually implies a specific standard: default end-to-end encryption. There are Two Main Types of Encryption: Non-End-to-End Encryption (Cloud Encryption) In non-end-to-end encryption, messages are encrypted by the sender, but the encryption keys needed to decrypt the messages are accessible to the service provider. This means that while the messages are protected during transmission (over the internet), once they reach the service provider’s servers, the provider can decrypt and access the content of the messages. This setup is common in services where the provider might need to access message content for various reasons, such as indexing for search, applying spam filters, or complying with legal requests. For example, Gmail uses this type of encryption. When you send an email via Gmail, it is encrypted during transit, ensuring that interceptors cannot read it. However, once your email reaches Google’s servers, Google has the capability to decrypt the emails. This is because Google controls the encryption keys. This capability allows Google to scan emails for spam and malware, provide search functionality across your emails, and comply with legal demands such as subpoenas or warrants that require access to email content. End-to-end Encryption Conversely, with end-to-end encryption, the data (such as messages or calls) are encrypted on the sender’s device and only the intended recipient has the key to decrypt it. This means no intermediary, not even the service provider, has access to the encryption keys necessary to decrypt the data. The message stays encrypted throughout its journey from sender to receiver, becoming readable only when it reaches its intended destination. When you send a message via these platforms, nobody besides you and the recipient—not even the companies running these services—can read what’s sent. This secures your communication against both cyber threats and any potential surveillance from service providers or government authorities, making it a stronger option for protecting privacy. Telegram employs a hybrid approach to encryption, incorporating both non-end-to-end encryption for general messages and an optional end-to-end encryption feature for those seeking higher security. For the majority of its user interactions, Telegram does NOT use end-to-end encryption. Under this system, messages are encrypted on the sender’s device and sent to Telegram’s servers where they are stored. Telegram’s non-end-to-end encryption is employed across several of its key features: Multi-device Access: Users can access their messages from multiple devices simultaneously. Since messages are stored on Telegram’s servers after being encrypted, users can seamlessly sync their chat histories across any number of devices, such as smartphones, tablets, or computers. Chat Backups: Telegram provides the ability to restore your chat history when you switch to a new device. This is possible because the messages are stored in the cloud, ensuring that no data is lost even if your device is. Large Group Chats and Channels: Telegram’s cloud encryption facilitates the management of large group chats and channels, which can include thousands of members. This setup allows for efficient delivery and storage of messages even in large volumes. Bot Integration: Bots on Telegram can interact with users in various ways, such as by sending customized notifications, facilitating transactions, or providing information services. These bots can access messages sent to them by users because those messages are not end-to-end encrypted. These features are supported by the fact that Telegram can, in theory, decrypt and manage messages as needed, thanks to the company having access to the encryption keys. In a statement addressing its encryption practices, Telegram outlined its unique approach. “Cloud Chat data is stored in multiple data centers around the globe, controlled by different legal entities across various jurisdictions,” Telegram explained. The company further alleged that decryption keys are split into parts and kept separate from the data they protect, making unauthorized access by local engineers or intruders virtually impossible. “As a result, local intruders or engineers can’t access this data, and several court orders from different jurisdictions are required to force us to give up any of it,” the statement continued. In summary, when you start a standard chat or group chat with someone on Telegram, your chat is NOT end-to-end encrypted and can, in theory, be decrypted by an entity other than you and the recipient of your messages. When you follow a channel on Telegram, this is more like social media and the data transmitted there is also NOT end-to-end encrypted. In fact, it can even be visible on the open web like this. Most Telegram channel posts can be viewed on the open web like this. However, Telegram does offer an end-to-end encrypted feature with what it calls “Secret Chats.” This mode of communication is protected by end-to-end encryption, in theory ensuring that only the communicating parties—the sender and the recipient—can read the messages. In this mode, Telegram says nothing is stored on Telegram’s servers, and there are no keys available to Telegram or any third parties. Secret Chats also include additional security features like self-destructing messages and screenshot notifications which let you know when someone has screenshotted a message in your Secret Chat. Note that Secret Chats need to be activated manually for each conversation and are only available for one-on-one chats. This means that if users do not specifically opt for Secret Chats, their communications are not protected by end-to-end encryption. While Secret Chats have a high level of security, they are less convenient than standard chats because both participants must be online for Secret Chats to initiate and exchange encrypted messages. Secret Chats also remain on the devices that they were initiated from and cannot be synced to the users’ other devices. Different Types of End-To-End Encryption For simplicity’s sake, there are two basic forms of end-to-end encryption – open source, and closed source. Open Source Encryption Open-source encryption is widely regarded by cybersecurity experts as one of the most secure methods of encryption. This preference is rooted in the transparency and community scrutiny that open-source projects afford. When encryption software is open source, its source code is publicly available, allowing anyone to examine how the software functions and verify the security of its encryption methods. Transparency and Security Audits: One of the primary advantages of open-source encryption is the level of transparency it provides. Since the source code is accessible to all, independent security experts, researchers, and developers can scrutinize it for vulnerabilities, flaws, or backdoors. This continuous and open vetting process tends to result in more secure software, as issues are identified and, in theory, patched more quickly compared to proprietary software, where the code is only accessible to the company’s internal team. Community Collaboration: Open source projects benefit from the collective expertise of a global community. Developers from around the world can contribute to the project, enhancing the software with new features, security enhancements, and fixes. This collaborative approach not only speeds up the development and fortification of the software but also fosters innovation within the field of encryption. Building Trust Through Transparency: For encryption software, trust is paramount. Users need to trust that the software will protect their data as claimed. Open-source encryption builds trust through its transparency—users don’t need to rely on the security claims of a vendor; they can see for themselves or rely on the assessment of independent experts who have reviewed the code. Closed-Source Encryption Most experts caution against the use of closed-source encryption due to its lack of transparency, which can obscure potential vulnerabilities and limit external verification. Unlike open-source encryption, where the code is available for public review, closed-source encryption keeps its operational code hidden, restricting the assessment of its security to the internal teams of the company that owns it. This secrecy can prevent independent security experts from conducting thorough audits, making it harder to trust the encryption’s robustness. Additionally, without external scrutiny, it’s more challenging to identify and rectify security flaws, which could potentially leave user data at risk of unauthorized access or breaches. When using closed-source encryption, requires more trust as the claims about the degree to which communications are encrypted can’t be independently verified. Telegram’s end-to-end encryption is closed source which has raised skepticism within the security community. Telegram has given several reasons for its approach. The company emphasizes the balance between user convenience and security. Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov, has alleged that making the entire platform open-source could potentially expose it to more risks, as malicious actors might find it easier to spot vulnerabilities and exploit them. Telegram has also argued that its in-house-developed encryption and security processes are robust and secure, even without the open-source model. It claims that its internal security team continuously works on enhancing the security features, maintaining that the security of Telegram’s encrypted data—both for cloud chats and for secret chats—meets high standards even without external validation. When choosing between open-source and closed-source encryption tools, it’s crucial for individuals to make informed decisions based on a clear understanding of the differences associated with each approach. Open-source encryption offers greater transparency, allowing anyone to independently scrutinize and verify the security of the software and verify that a company is doing what it says it is, which can lead to enhanced trust and security through collective improvements. On the other hand, closed-source encryption requires more trust, does not provide the same level of transparency and external audits, and makes it more difficult to assess the tool’s security. Understanding these key differences is essential because the choice of encryption tool can significantly impact the security of your communication and data. Consider Metadata However, that’s not the full story. Another important aspect to consider is what is being done with the data that is collected. WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Telegram are among the most widely used messaging apps globally, each with its own approach to user privacy and data security. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, both owned by Big Tech giant Meta, offer end-to-end encryption for conversations between users, ensuring that the content of messages is protected from interception. However, these platforms do collect and store metadata, which includes information about who communicates with whom. This data is subject to US jurisdiction and can be accessed by government authorities through legal channels, meaning that while the content of the messages remains private, the patterns of communication are not private. Some of Meta’s platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, also collect vast amounts of data about users outside of these end-to-end encrypted conversations. Since Meta’s platforms share data with each other, Meta also has the capability to create and share revealing user profiles that extend beyond these patterns of communication. Telegram, on the other hand, with its mixed model where only the “Secret Chats” are end-to-end encrypted, means that regular messages are encrypted but not end-to-end, leaving them accessible under certain conditions. Although Telegram also collects some user data, it has a history of being more resistant to government requests for data access and content censorship, at least as far as the public is aware. Part of Durov’s arrest in France is predicated on Telegram’s refusal to comply with government requests. While this requires a lot of trust, this stance is why some see Telegram as a strong choice for those seeking more privacy from government oversight, particularly in regions with stringent control over digital communications. The arrest of Durov is particularly concerning in this context. Durov’s reported commitment to resisting government intrusion and censorship has been a cornerstone of Telegram’s policy, making his arrest a significant alarm for advocates of digital privacy and freedom of expression. This arrest raises concerns about the future direction of Telegram’s privacy policies and its ability to resist external pressures, potentially affecting the trust and reliance users place on the platform for secure communications. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Telegram’s Encryption and Privacy Explained appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

'We Did It, Joe' Update: Dollar General's Earnings Crash, Record Drop in Sales

CNN’s Dana Bash is set to interview Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and voters could be forgiven for having high hopes that it will be too informative? Harris-Walz is arguably the most liberal ticket ever, but they are trying desperately to cover that up, so here are a wide variety of 30 questions that Bash could ask that might actually help voters make an informed choice in a couple of months. For Harris Should death row inmates have the right to vote? Do you support the elimination of private health insurance?   How can you claim to unite the country when you were named the most liberal senator in 2019? How can you secure the border when you previously stated it should not be a crime to enter the U.S. illegally? Do you support any limits on abortion? When does life begin?  Should biological males, who identify as women, be allowed to compete in women’s sports? Do you still favor banning fracking? Would you overturn President Biden’s ban on LNG exports? If not, how can you really claim to be tough on Russia? What is the greater national security threat? China or climate change? Who will be more prevalent in a Harris Administration: environmentalists or unions with EV concerns? How can voters trust your national security judgement when, in 2019, you said Donald Trump was the greatest threat to U.S. national security? Given October 7 and everything that has happened since, was it a mistake for President Biden to take the Houthis off the terrorist organization list? Do you support ending the Senate filibuster? Do you support adding justices to the Supreme Court?  How can voters trust you on the economy when even liberal Washington Post columnists are attacking your price control plan? How do you plan to tackle the national debt without serious spending reforms? Did President Biden overspend, causing inflation? Did colleges violate Title VI by not ending anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic demonstrations earlier this year? Is America a systemically racist country? Did you conceal anything about Biden’s mental or physical condition from the American people? How can you claim to be the pro-democracy candidate when you were essentially appointed as nominee? Did you really work at McDonalds? You never mentioned it until you decided to run for president?  For Walz How can you accuse Republicans of attacking your service when your own former National Guard superior accuses you of going around him because there was a chance he wouldn’t approve your retirement request? Why did you embellish your military resume to push liberal gun control priorities? Why did you sign a law that ended the requirement that babies who survived abortions be given life-saving medical care? Why did you repeal laws against coercing women to obtain abortions? Why did you fearmonger about Republicans banning IVF by invoking your wife when she did not use IVF? Why did you associate with a pro-Hamas, Hitler-sympathizing imam?   Do you really believe China has a system where “everyone shares”? Bash has an opportunity to force Harris and Walz to focus on substance. Asking the questions on this list will be a good test of CNN's desire to make the election about issues rather than personalities.

On March 30, 1981, a 30-year-old man named John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. After giving a speech at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., Reagan was returning to his limo when Hinkley shot him and wounded three others. Reagan’s press secretary James Brady was struck in the head and became permanently disabled. As Reagan was waving to a crowd, a bullet ricocheted off his limo, struck him under his left arm, broke a rib and caused massive internal bleeding. His injuries were far more serious than first thought. In fact, some initial reporting claimed Reagan was “unharmed.” In fact, Reagan almost died. The would-be assassin was wrestled to the ground. At the hospital, Reagan reportedly said to first lady Nancy, “Honey, I forgot to duck.” As Reagan was wheeled to the operating room, Reagan said to his doctors, “Please tell me you’re Republicans.” About the would-be assassin, he said, “Does anybody know what that guy’s beef was?” When Reagan regained consciousness from anesthesia, he wrote a note saying, “All in all, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.” He wrote in another note, “Send me to L.A., where I can see the air I’m breathing.” In yet another note to his medical staff, he wrote, “If I had this much attention in Hollywood, I’d have stayed there.” After a nurse praised his recovery by saying, “Keep up the good work,” Reagan said, “You mean this may happen several more times?” When a top aide told him the government was continuing to perform normally, Reagan said, “What makes you think I’d be happy about that?” On July 13, 2024, a 20-year-old man named Thomas Matthew Crooks tried to assassinate former President Donald Trump. As Trump stood on an outdoor stage at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Crooks, from a nearby rooftop, fired eight rounds. He killed one audience member and seriously wounded two others. A bullet struck Trump in his upper right ear. As agents surrounded him and escorted him off stage toward his SUV, the bloodied former president thrust his right fist in the air, pumped his arm and shouted, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” He was taken to a hospital, treated and released the same day. The day after the assassination attempt against Reagan, The New York Times wrote: “(M)ost (members of Congress) wore the glazed expressions and had the subdued manners of those in shock. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, took the floor, after initial reports were received, and declared: ‘My family has been touched by violence. Year after year in recent times we have seen violence in this country: My brother John Kennedy and my brother Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, George Wallace, Al Lowenstein, Vernon Jordan, the attack on President Ford, and now the attack on President Reagan. All of us who care about this country and who care about our fellow citizens bear an important responsibility in whatever way we possibly can to rid this society and to rid this country of the kind of violence and hatred that we have seen.’” Reagan’s approval ratings jumped 8 points to nearly 68%. President Joe Biden, two days after the Trump assassination attempt, gave a brief address from the White House and urged Americans to “lower the temperature in our politics.” A Florida Atlantic University/Mainstreet poll conducted after the assassination attempt found a “small bump” in favor of Trump, but nothing like the 8-point increase Reagan experienced. One survey of Democratic voters found that one-third agreed with the following statement: “I wish Trump’s (would-be) assassination hadn’t missed.” Reagan had many detractors. A Democratic member of the House, for example, accused him of “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.” Trump detractors include first lady Jill Biden who, five days before the assassination attempt, pronounced Trump “evil.” Trump’s detractors include Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, who three weeks after the assassination attempt called Trump supporters “fascist.” Reagan’s critics disliked Reagan. Trump’s critics hate Trump.

On Wednesday, Plaintiff and Navy veteran Zachary Young responded to CNN’s citation of the Taliban’s “Sharia law” in a scathing filing. Young’s counsel of Freedman Normand Friedland LLP ripped into CNN’s defense in the $1 billion defamation suit by calling it “a masterclass in absurdity and desperation.” Additionally, CNN may have blown up their own Sharia defense with an article post just last week, which admitted the Taliban were only now implementing the travel restrictions for women their legal defense relied on. In a filing exclusively obtained by NewsBusters, lead counsel Vel Freedman and counsel Joe Delich made the case for why CNN’s reliance on Sharia law should be rejected by the court: Unable to marshal any evidence that Young did something illegal, CNN nonetheless claims the Court can’t grant summary judgement on the legality of Young’s actions because the evacuations were “almost certainly” illegal under Sharia law—which allegedly criminalizes the conduct of saving a woman’s life outside the presence of her male relatives.     In addition to noting that CNN did not cite any actual Afghan statute/civil code Young allegedly violated (nor did they cite any Islamic/Sharia scholars), the filing argues one of the reasons why CNN’s defense fails was because, “the Taliban didn’t implement their formal “restrictions” on women’s movement until last week, i.e. August 2024, years after the evacuations took place.” Their evidence of this was an Associated Press article republished on CNN, which was also contributed to by a CNN reporter. “According to CNN and the Associated Press, the “First formal declaration of vice and virtue laws in Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in 2021” was not enacted until August 21, 2024—three years later,” the filing pointed out, also noting that the allegedly defamatory reporting by CNN occurred on November 11, 2021. The AP/CNN article further reported (bold added to highlight): “The laws ban the publication of images of living beings, threatening an already fragile Afghan media landscape; the playing of music; the transportation of solo female travelers; and the mixing of men and women who are not related to each other. The laws also oblige passengers and drivers to perform prayers at designated times.” “CNN’s Jennifer Hauser contributed to this report,” it noted at the bottom. The filing concluded on this point by saying: “Therefore, even if they would now be illegal (it’s not), Young’s acts were certainly not illegal at the time CNN made its defamatory remarks.” The citation of CNN’s own article against them seemed to throw the defense team into a panic. In an “emergency motion” submitted on Thursday, exclusively obtained by NewsBusters, CNN’s lead counsel Deanna Shullman (of Shullman Fugate PLLC) pleaded for Judge Scott Henry for a hearing later that day, and for the hearing scheduled for the next day (Friday, August 30) to be postponed for 40 days or have the reply stricken from the record: To avoid reversable [sic] error, the only remedies available are 1) to postpone the hearing to a date that allows appropriate notice in compliance with the rule; or 2) strike the reply and prevent Plaintiffs from relying on or referencing the reply and the attached new evidence to support their motion. Seemingly one of Shullman’s other complaints about the filing was that “Plaintiffs filed a 26-page reply in support of their Motion. The reply is longer than the original Motion.” Elsewhere in Young’s filing, it pointed out that the citation of Sharia law was the latest effort by CNN to justify – after the fact – why what they said in the original report was accurate. Freedman and Delich recalled that at no point before August did CNN mention Sharia in their defense at all: Here, there is not even a scintilla of evidence that a common mind would understand CNN’s use of the term “black market” to mean illegality under the Taliban’s Sharia law. That just makes sense, because it’s undisputed that CNN didn’t intend anything about Sharia law when it published the Segment. Through two years of litigation and 17 depositions across all ranks of CNN from journalists to executives, “Sharia” was never mentioned, not once. Indeed, CNN testified that it does not believe that Young was involved in any illegal activity.     The filing also threw Sharia law back in CNN’s face by citing scholars who have written about “the Islamic doctrine of the of necessity, known as Darura,” which – in part – looks to the following quote from the Quran that says one could break Islamic rules if one’s life was in serious danger: He has only forbidden you ‘to eat’ carrion, blood, swine, and what it slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah. But if anyone is forced to eat such things by hunger, rather than desire to excess, he commits no sin: God is most merciful and forgiving. This would apply to the women fleeing the Taliban because their lives would be at stake otherwise, the filing argues: “CNN cannot seriously deny that the women and children Young helped escape the Taliban were threatened by death or serious injury.” Some of the other points made in Young’s filing draw attention to the fact that CNN had failed to make Sharia the foundation of the case to begin with and that the Taliban were not the legally recognized government of Afghanistan by U.S. and internationally. Freedman and Delich concluded the open statement by declaring: While desperate times are generally thought to call for desperate measures, CNN’s Sharia law argument sinks to a new low. Condemning numerous Afghans to die by defaming Young wasn’t enough for CNN. It now mocks those who suffered and perished under the Taliban’s brutal regime by asking this Court to consider, enforce, and apply the Taliban’s rules as law—rules that treat women worse than animals. The argument is deplorable and offensive, but it’s also frivolous for the reasons above. CNN should be ashamed of itself. NewsBusters will be covering the August 30 hearing live. Keep an eye on our social media accounts.

Special counsel Jack Smith, appointed by the Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Justice, filed a superseding indictment against Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening.Legal professionals, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, former assistant U.S. attorney Andy McCarthy, and former federal prosecutor and former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, slammed Smith for the new indictment submitted in response to the Supreme Court’s July presidential immunity ruling.'Going nowhere before the election.'Smith’s latest legal action includes the same four charges he filed against Trump in the original indictment in August 2023 accusing the former president of federal election subversion in the 2020 presidential race. However, this revised indictment, handed down just 70 days before the upcoming election, attempts to address the Supreme Court’s ruling that declared presidents are entitled to immunity for official acts.Trump is also facing three other separate indictments, including the New York criminal trial where he is awaiting sentencing slated for September, an alleged election interference case in Georgia that is stalled in the courts, and the classified documents case that United States District Judge Aileen Cannon threw out. Smith recently filed an appeal against Cannon’s decision. Trusty told “CNN News Central” that Smith’s latest indictment could hit a “huge land mine” because it is attempting to “anticipate how the judge would rule on this official acts quandary.”While the Supreme Court determined that Trump is immune from official acts, it did not outline what constitutes an unofficial versus official act, which will be left up to the lower courts to determine.“So he’s anticipating that, but it’s really interesting because the opinion says, not just that immunized information is not properly before the court at trial, but that it contaminates the grand jury process. If you include that information in pursuing an indictment, that’s a huge land mine,” Trusty explained. “The problem is if he guesses wrong in one instance, like in other words, if he says, ‘oh, the president was consulting Mike Pence as president of the Senate, not as vice president,’ which is part of this new indictment, then if he gets it wrong once, he’s got the same problem.”“He’s got to go back to the grand jury, re-indict for the third time based on this ruling coming from the Supreme Court. So it’s interesting, it’s taking the initiative, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a bulletproof indictment,” Trusty added.Turley claimed that Smith has “always played right up the margin,” noting that “at times he has crossed over.”“He was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on probably his previous most famous case because he stretched the law, and that has been a signature of his, and I think he’s still doing it,” Turley stated, referring to a case against former Virginia Republican Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife where the Supreme Court ultimately overruled the conviction.McCarthy called the indictment against Trump “lawfare,” speculating that the case “is going nowhere before the election and I don’t think it’s going anywhere before we have a new president.”He noted that regardless of the revised indictment, there is “still going to be a live immunity issue, which means Trump will be able to appeal to the D.C. circuit and the Supreme Court.”Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) told Newsmax on Wednesday that Smith’s new indictment is “just disgusting,” pointing to the fact that the charges were filed roughly two months before the election. He accused the Biden-Harris administration of using any means necessary to win the presidential race.“This is complete election interference, and the American people need to wake up,” Scott said.Trump responded Tuesday to Smith’s revised indictment on social media, arguing that “the whole case should be thrown out and dismissed on Presidential immunity grounds.”He accused Smith of rewriting “the exact same case in an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.”Trump called Smith’s actions “shocking” and an “unprecedented abuse of the criminal justice system.”“This is merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION, and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more,” Trump wrote.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The lead actress of the latest offering in the "Star Wars" franchise has spoken out about the cancellation of the series, and she is blaming "hatred" and "bigotry" from "hyper-conservative" viewers. "The Acolyte" was nearly universally rejected due to the woke themes shoehorned into the popular mythos, but Amandla Stenberg went on social media to accuse fans of hatred after the show was canceled by Disney+. 'Bigotry and vitriol, prejudice, hatred and hateful language.' “I’m going to be transparent and say it’s not a huge shock for me,” Stenberg said in a story video on Instagram. “There has been a rampage of vitriol that we have faced since the show was even announced, when it was still just a concept and no one had even seen it," she continued. "That’s when we started experiencing a rampage of, I would say, hyper-conservative bigotry and vitriol, prejudice, hatred, and hateful language towards us.” She went on to say the series was a victim of a "targeted attack" by the "alt-right." Stenberg had previously accused Hollywood of being a "white institution" and was known as an LGBTQ activist on social media. "Representations within Hollywood are going to be extensions of white supremacy," she said on a podcast. Many fans recoiled when the series introduced lesbian witchcraft into the "Star Wars" lore and recast good guys as the bad. Ratings for the show plummeted, but the few who defended the series claimed those poor ratings were due to a small group of hateful fans. That account was undermined by the cancellation of the show, which at one point garnered a positive review from only 14% of fans on Rotten Tomatoes. It currently stands at 18%. The show cost $180 million to produce, making it one of the most expensive Disney+ "Star Wars" shows ever, at a cost of $671,641 per minute. Many on social media hoped the demise of the woke show meant the franchise might turn back to more traditional narratives. Here's more about the woke disaster: Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!