Add Your Heading Text Here The post Hollywood Threatens To Round Up Trump Supporters For Supporting ICE appeared first on SALTY.

Add Your Heading Text Here The post Scottykfitness Doxxing People Backfires Bigly & Says He’s in Danger appeared first on SALTY.

Add Your Heading Text Here The post Epstein Claimed Bill Gates Caught STD from ‘Sex with Russian Girls’ appeared first on SALTY.

Add Your Heading Text Here The post Black Students Walk Out To Protest ICE Then Rob Anti-ICE Protestor appeared first on SALTY.

  Love is in the air. And as thoughts turn to Valentine’s Day, we look at a great album of snapshots of people getting naked, getting cosy and having barrels of fun – in wooden barrels, once used for booze, grain and oil ever since Pennsylvania oilmen collected the substance in whiskey barrels after striking their first gushers. Photograph collector Robert E. Jackson sees love in these terrific snapshots. And we agree. So let’s hitch up our skirts and sing along to the Škoda lásky, also known as The Barrel Polka, Rosamunde and Roll Out the Barrel, the 1927 polka that became a wartime drinking song of good cheer, foxhole camaraderie and hope: Roll out the barrel, we’ll have a barrel of fun Roll out the barrel, we’ve got the blues on the run Zing boom tararrel, ring out a song of good cheer Now’s the time to roll the barrel, for the gang’s all here     “T is sweet to win, no matter how, one’s laurels, By blood or ink; ‘t is sweet to put an end To strife; ‘t is sometimes sweet to have our quarrels, Particularly with a tiresome friend: Sweet is old wine in bottles, ale in barrels; Dear is the helpless creature we defend Against the world; and dear the schoolboy spot We ne’er forget, though there we are forgot. But sweeter still than this, than these, than all, Is first and passionate Love—it stands alone… — Lord Byron, Don Juan     “Then, all to once, it gave a jump and it seemed to me it went like a streak of lightning. It must have shot 15-20 feet out and I went into an eddy or a pool where I went round, just like that. The barrel nearly stood up, and that is the place where things go down and disappear forever” – Annie Edson Taylor recalls becoming the first person to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel in 1901     In Trinidad, one dollar buy Papaya juice, banana pie, Six coconut, one female goat, An’ plenty fish to fill de boat. One bushel bread, one barrel wine, An’ all de town, she come to dine. But here is bad, one dollar buy Cup of coffee, ham on rye. Me throat she sick from necktie, Me feet hurt from shoes. Me pocket full of empty, I got Calypso blues. – Calypso Blues     Mother phoned up last night, she was going spare She was in a temper, pulling out her hair Your sister’s courtin’ a scruffy looking Ted Father don’t give a monkey’s and this is what he said I don’t care, I don’t care I don’t care if he comes ’round here I got my beer in the sideboard here Let mother sort it out if he comes ’round here –  Chas ‘n’ Dave, The Sideboard Song        Spurred by demand for lamp fuel as whale blubber grew scarce, derricks popped up all over Pennsylvania’s oil region in the 1860s–although subsequent overproduction drove prices so far down that at one point, a wooden barrel was worth twice as much as the oil it contained… – Kate Pickert, Time     Funny glasses with a little piece of ice Anything that comes with lemon and a slice Fancy cocktails that are shaken and not stirred Drinks with cherries in that make you absurd With you finger cocked to leave your friends impressed Anything that ain’t a pint of Courage Best Mine’s pint of best… – Chas ‘n’ Dave, Getcha! for Courage Best Bitter     “It became a game that I took to with immense gusto: to see how much I could remember about dandelions themselves, or picking wild grapes with my father and brother, rediscovering the mosquito-breeding ground rain barrel by the side bay window, or searching out the smell of the gold-fuzzed bees that hung around our back porch grape arbor. Bees do have a smell, you know, and if they don’t they should, for their feet are dusted with spices from a million flowers.” — Ray Bradbury, Dandelion Wine     We’ve lots more from Robert E. Jackson on the site. And you can follow him here for more great stuff. The post 23 Fabulous Vintage Snapshots of People In Barrels appeared first on Flashbak.

  Pulitzer Prize-winning comix artist Art Spiegelman wrote the graphic novel Maus, the self-published zine RAW. While working at Topps trading cards he co-created the Garbage Pail Kids (with Mark Newgarden) and in 1971 this set of Nasty Valentine Notes.     You’re always wearing bells and beads And asking “What’s your sign?” Most people think you’re out of sight You’re just out of your mind!     As Jay Lynch writes: Art Spiegelman did the art on the wrapper and box. He also did the finished art on some of the pieces themselves… and he wrote most of them and did roughs. So he is the main guy behind this series. Some of the final art on the pieces are by Ralph Reece and Wally Wood. The set of 30 cards lampoon yoga, hippies, fashion, sex and yoga. Sold in the same format as baseball cards, each satirical Valentine’s Day card needed to be unfolded three times to reveal the images and poem. If you enjoy these subversive cards, check out these ‘vinegar Valentines‘ from the Victoria era,   Original Nasty Valentine sketch by Wally Wood                 And finally…   The post Nasty Valentine Notes by Topps, 1971 appeared first on Flashbak.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem last week posted a photo of the arrest of Nekima Levy Armstrong, one of three activists who had entered a St. Paul, Minn. church to confront a pastor who also serves as acting field director of the St Paul Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office.  A short while later, the White House posted the same photo – except that version had been digitally altered to darken Armstrong’s skin and rearrange her facial features to make it appear she was sobbing or distraught. The Guardian one of many media outlets to report on this image manipulation, created a handy slider graphic to help viewers see clearly how the photo had been changed.   This isn’t about “owning the libs” — this is the highest office in the nation using technology to lie to the entire world.  The New York Times reported it had run the two images through Resemble.AI, an A.I. detection system, which concluded Noem’s image was real but the White House’s version showed signs of manipulation. "The Times was able to create images nearly identical to the White House’s version by asking Gemini and Grok — generative A.I. tools from Google and Elon Musk’s xAI start-up — to alter Ms. Noem’s original image."  Most of us can agree that the government shouldn’t lie to its constituents. We can also agree that good government does not involve emphasizing cruelty or furthering racial biases. But this abuse of technology violates both those norms.  “Accuracy and truthfulness are core to the credibility of visual reporting,” the National Press Photographers Association said in a statement issued about this incident. “The integrity of photographic images is essential to public trust and to the historical record. Altering editorial content for any purpose that misrepresents subjects or events undermines that trust and is incompatible with professional practice.”  This isn’t about “owning the libs” — this is the highest office in the nation using technology to lie to the entire world. Reworking an arrest photo to make the arrestee look more distraught not only is a lie, but it’s also a doubling-down on a “the cruelty is the point” manifesto. Using a manipulated image further humiliates the individual and perpetuate harmful biases, and the only reason to darken an arrestee’s skin would be to reinforce colorist stereotypes and stoke the flames of racial prejudice, particularly against dark-skinned people.   History is replete with cruel and racist images as propaganda: Think of Nazi Germany’s cartoons depicting Jewish people, or contemporaneously, U.S. cartoons depicting Japanese people as we placed Japanese-Americans in internment camps. Time magazine caught hell in 1994 for using an artificially darkened photo of O.J. Simpson on its cover, and several Republican politcal campaigns in recent years have been called out for similar manipulation in recent years.  But in an age when we can create or alter a photo with a few keyboard strokes, when we can alter what viewers think is reality so easily and convincingly, the danger of abuse by government is greater.    Had the Trump administration not ham-handedly released the retouched perp-walk photo after Noem had released the original, we might not have known the reality of that arrest at all. This dishonesty is all the more reason why Americans’ right to record law enforcement activities must be protected. Without independent records and documentation of what’s happening, there’s no way to contradict the government’s lies.  This incident raises the question of whether the Trump Administration feels emboldened to manipulate other photos for other propaganda purposes. Does it rework photos of the President to make him appear healthier, or more awake? Does it rework military or intelligence images to create pretexts for war? Does it rework photos of American citizens protesting or safeguarding their neighbors to justify a military deployment?  In this instance, like so much of today’s political trolling, there’s a good chance it’ll be counterproductive for the trolls: The New York Times correctly noted that the doctored photograph could hinder the Armstrong’s right to a fair trial. “As the case proceeds, her lawyers could use it to accuse the Trump administration of making what are known as improper extrajudicial statements. Most federal courts bar prosecutors from making any remarks about court filings or a legal proceeding outside of court in a way that could prejudice the pool of jurors who might ultimately hear the case.” They also could claim the doctored photo proves the Justice Department bore some sort of animus against Armstrong and charged her vindictively.  In the past, we've urged caution when analyzing proposals to regulate technologies that could be used to create false images. In those cases, we argued that any new regulation should rely on the established framework for addressing harms caused by other forms of harmful false information. But in this situation, it is the government itself that is misusing technology and propagating harmful falsehoods. This doesn't require new laws; the government can and should put an end to this practice on its own.  Any reputable journalism organization would fire an employee for manipulating a photo this way; many have done exactly that. It’s a shame our government can’t adhere to such a basic ethical and moral code too. 

The Digital Services Act (DSA) Human Rights Alliance has, since its founding by EFF and Access Now in 2021, worked to ensure that the European Union follows a human rights-based approach to platform governance by integrating a wide range of voices and perspectives to contextualise DSA enforcement and examining the DSA’s effect on tech regulations around the world.As the DSA moves from legislation to enforcement, it has become increasingly clear that its impact depends not only on the text of the Act but also how it’s interpreted and enforced in practice. This is why the Alliance has created a set of recommendations to include civil society organizations and rights-defending stakeholders in the enforcement process.   The Principles for a Human Rights-Centred Application of the DSA: A Global Perspective, a report published this week by the Alliance, outlines steps the European Commission, as the main DSA enforcer, as well as national policymakers and regulators, should take to bring diverse groups to the table as a means of ensuring that the implementation of the DSA is grounded in human rights standards.  The Principles also offer guidance for regulators outside the EU who look to the DSA as a reference framework and international bodies and global actors concerned with digital governance and the wider implications of the DSA. The Principles promote meaningful stakeholder engagement and emphasize the role of civil society organisations in providing expertise and acting as human rights watchdogs. “Regulators and enforcers need input from civil society, researchers, and affected communities to understand the global dynamics of platform governance,” said EFF International Policy Director Christoph Schmon. “Non-EU-based civil society groups should be enabled to engage on equal footing with EU stakeholders on rights-focused elements of the DSA. This kind of robust engagement will help ensure that DSA enforcement serves the public interest and strengthens fundamental rights for everyone, especially marginalized and vulnerable groups.” “As activists are increasingly intimidated, journalists silenced, and science and academic freedom attacked by those who claim to defend free speech, it is of utmost importance that the Digital Services Act's enforcement is centered around the protection of fundamental rights, including the right to the freedom of expression,” said Marcel Kolaja, Policy & Advocacy Director—Europe at Access Now. “To do so effectively, the global perspective needs to be taken into account. The DSA Human Rights Principles provide this perspective and offer valuable guidance for the European Commission, policymakers, and regulators for implementation and enforcement of policies aiming at the protection of fundamental rights.” “The Principles come at the crucial moment for the EU candidate countries, such as Serbia, that have been aligning their legislation with the EU acquis but still struggle with some of the basic rule of law and human rights standards,” said Ana Toskic Cvetinovic, Executive Director for Partners Serbia. “The DSA HR Alliance offers the opportunity for non-EU civil society to learn about the existing challenges of DSA implementation and design strategies for impacting national policy development in order to minimize any negative impact on human rights.”  The Principles call for: ◼ Empowering EU and non-EU Civil Society and Users to Pursue DSA Enforcement Actions ◼ Considering Extraterritorial and Cross-Border Effects of DSA Enforcement ◼ Promoting Cross-Regional Collaboration Among CSOs on Global Regulatory Issues ◼ Establishing Institutionalised Dialogue Between EU and Non-EU Stakeholders ◼ Upholding the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights in DSA Enforcement, Free from Political Influence ◼ Considering Global Experiences with Trusted Flaggers and Avoid Enforcement Abuse ◼ Recognising the International Relevance of DSA Data Access and Transparency Provisions for Human Rights MonitoringThe Principles have been signed by 30 civil society organizations,researchers, and independent experts.The DSA Human Right Alliance represents diverse communities across the globe to ensure that the DSA embraces a human rights-centered approach to platform governance and that EU lawmakers consider the global impacts of European legislation.  

Lawmakers in Washington are once again focusing on kids, screens, and mental health. But according to Congress, Big Tech is somehow both the problem and the solution. We're diving into the latest attempt to control how kids access the internet and more with our latest EFFector newsletter. Since 1990, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This latest issue tracks what to do when you hit an age gate online, explains why rent-only copyright culture makes us all worse off, and covers the dangers of law enforcement purchasing straight-up military drones. Prefer to listen in? In our audio companion, EFF Senior Policy Analyst Joe Mullin explains what lawmakers should do if they really want to help families. Find the conversation on YouTube or the Internet Archive. LISTEN TO EFFECTOR EFFECTOR 38.2 - ✍️ THE BILL TO HAND PARENTING TO BIG TECH Want to stay in the fight for privacy and free speech online? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight to protect people from these data breaches and unlawful surveillance when you support EFF today!

EFF has long warned about the dangers of the “real-time bidding” (RTB) system powering nearly every ad you see online. A proposed class-action settlement with Google over their RTB system is a step in the right direction towards giving people more control over their data. Truly curbing the harms of RTB, however, will require stronger legislative protections. What Is Real-Time Bidding? RTB is the process by which most websites and apps auction off their ad space. Unfortunately, the milliseconds-long auctions that determine which ads you see also expose your personal information to thousands of companies a day. At a high-level, here’s how RTB works: The moment you visit a website or app with ad space, it asks an ad tech company to determine which ads to display for you. This involves sending information about you and the content you’re viewing to the ad tech company. This ad tech company packages all the information they can gather about you into a “bid request” and broadcasts it to thousands of potential advertisers.  The bid request may contain information like your unique advertising ID, your GPS coordinates, IP address, device details, inferred interests, demographic information, and the app or website you’re visiting. The information in bid requests is called “bidstream data” and typically includes identifiers that can be linked to real people.  Advertisers use the personal information in each bid request, along with data profiles they’ve built about you over time, to decide whether to bid on the ad space.  The highest bidder gets to display an ad for you, but advertisers (and the adtech companies they use to buy ads) can collect your bidstream data regardless of whether or not they bid on the ad space.    Why Is Real-Time Bidding Harmful? A key vulnerability of real-time bidding is that while only one advertiser wins the auction, all participants receive data about the person who would see their ad. As a result, anyone posing as an ad buyer can access a stream of sensitive data about billions of individuals a day. Data brokers have taken advantage of this vulnerability to harvest data at a staggering scale. Since bid requests contain individual identifiers, they can be tied together to create detailed profiles of people’s behavior over time. Data brokers have sold bidstream data for a range of invasive purposes, including tracking union organizers and political protesters, outing gay priests, and conducting warrantless government surveillance. Several federal agencies, including ICE, CBP and the FBI, have purchased location data from a data broker whose sources likely include RTB. ICE recently requested information on “Ad Tech” tools it could use in investigations, further demonstrating RTB’s potential to facilitate surveillance. RTB also poses national security risks, as researchers have warned that it could allow foreign states to obtain compromising personal data about American defense personnel and political leaders. The privacy harms of RTB are not just a matter of misuse by individual data brokers. RTB auctions broadcast torrents of personal data to thousands of companies, hundreds of times per day, with no oversight of how this information is ultimately used. Once your information is broadcast through RTB, it’s almost impossible to know who receives it or control how it’s used.  Proposed Settlement with Google Is a Step in the Right Direction As the dominant player in the online advertising industry, Google facilitates the majority of RTB auctions. Google has faced several class-action lawsuits for sharing users’ personal information with thousands of advertisers through RTB auctions without proper notice and consent. A recently proposed settlement to these lawsuits aims to give people more knowledge and control over how their information is shared in RTB auctions. Under the proposed settlement, Google must create a new privacy setting (the “RTB Control”) that allows people to limit the data shared about them in RTB auctions. When the RTB Control is enabled, bid requests will not include identifying information like pseudonymous IDs (including mobile advertising IDs), IP addresses, and user agent details. The RTB Control should also prevent cookie matching, a method companies use to link their data profiles about a person to a corresponding bid request. Removing identifying information from bid requests makes it harder for data brokers and advertisers to create consumer profiles based on bidstream data. If the proposed settlement is approved, Google will have to inform all users about the new RTB Control via email.  While this settlement would be a step in the right direction, it would still require users to actively opt out of their identifying information being shared through RTB. Those who do not change their default settings—research shows this is most people—will remain vulnerable to RTB’s massive daily data breach. Google broadcasting your personal data to thousands of companies each time you see an ad is an unacceptable and dangerous default.  The impact of RTB Control is further limited by technical constraints on who can enable it. RTB Control will only work for devices and browsers where Google can verify users are signed in to their Google account, or for signed-out users on browsers that allow third-party cookies. People who don't sign in to a Google account or don't enable privacy-invasive third-party cookies cannot benefit from this protection. These limitations could easily be avoided by making RTB Control the default for everyone. If the settlement is approved, regulators and lawmakers should push Google to enable RTB Control by default. The Real Solution: Ban Online Behavioral Advertising Limiting the data exposed through RTB is important, but we also need legislative change to protect people from the online surveillance enabled and incentivized by targeted advertising. The lack of strong, comprehensive privacy law in the U.S. makes it difficult for individuals to know and control how companies use their personal information. Strong privacy legislation can make privacy the default, not something that individuals must fight for through hidden settings or additional privacy tools. EFF advocates for data privacy legislation with teeth and a ban on ad targeting based on online behavioral profiles, as it creates a financial incentive for companies to track our every move. Until then, you can limit the harms of RTB by using EFF’s Privacy Badger to block ads that track you, disabling your mobile advertising ID (see instructions for iPhone/Android), and keeping an eye out for Google’s RTB Control.