Now the fun can really begin.

He may have solved a 2‚000-year-old mystery.

Whistleblowers expose the racist practices of the Georgia DA's office with shocking receipts.

Catherine Herridge was simply too damn good at her job reporting on Biden's corruption.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Critics of the contentious‚ and some would say at times unlawful‚ work of UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) are expectedly unimpressed by it getting a “rebrand” – that is‚ a new name. It remains to be seen if the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT – née CDU)‚ will continue with activities of the kind that highly likely got the image of the CDU so tarnished that it needed a “rebrand.” But government officials continue at the same time to deny there was any wrongdoing on the part of CDU to begin with – or that there will be any done by NSOIT. The controversy over CDU goes back to the “heyday” of the pandemic and censorship of Covid-related content. The accusation – that continues to be rejected by the government – is that individuals‚ including senior figures from across the UK’s political spectrum‚ were targeted. And‚ their online activity was first surveilled by CDU‚ which would then flag some posts for removal merely for criticizing the government‚ rather than “spreading disinformation.” But‚ responding to questions about all this in the British Parliament’s House of Lords earlier in the week‚ an official from the Department for Science‚ Innovation and Technology – NSOIT’s parent agency‚ said there was no merit to such claims‚ or fears‚ going forward. “I can confirm not only that it is not the role of NSOIT or the CDU to go after any individuals‚ regardless of their political belief‚ but that it never has been‚” junior minister Jonathan Berry told the lords‚ adding that the unit supposedly only looks for “threats from foreign states” – while the form of domestic political persecution it was accused of is something that is “categorically false.” However‚ Liberal Democrat Paul Strasburger continues to press the matter‚ specifically seeking answers as to how NSOIT will be controlled in the future‚ particularly given what he says was CDU’s “worrying overreach.” And – why the government “refuses to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee” to do that oversight. Berry’s response essentially amounted to revealing that NSOIT will – oversee itself. “As part of the civil service‚ NSOIT would have robust internal measures to verify and check its own work‚ and indeed it reports regularly across government and to ministers‚” the junior minister is quoted as stating. Other than that‚ Berry could offer “reassurances” to the House of Lords regarding the unit’s role‚ and he at the same time would not speak about either how NSOIT is staffed‚ nor how many people it employs‚ referring to it as “a national security institution.” The post UK Government Minister Shuns Concerns About “Anti-Disinformation Unit” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Within the geopolitical landscape of India and Pakistan‚ tech giant X is grappling with mounting hurdles. The Indian Government is pressuring X to censor certain accounts in an attempt to quell civil unrest‚ while Pakistani authorities appear to have curtailed access to X amid allegations of election fraud. India has in particular directed X’s attention to user accounts perceived to incite civil disobedience. X has confirmed this‚ stating the Indian Government has made an explicit demand to ban these specific users. However‚ this doesn’t paint the complete picture of X’s stance. As they work to fulfill these orders‚ X noted: “The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts‚ subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment. In compliance with the orders‚ we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however‚ we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts.” While it may be bowing to the pressure in the interim‚ X divulged its intention to legally combat the Indian Government’s sweeping bans. Previous instances show this is not newfound territory for the tech firm. Both X and former Twitter management have been cornered into censoring certain comments and users opposing official rulings. Notably‚ X’s attempts to champion free speech were undercut last year when they had to remove a BBC documentary critical of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi following its nationwide ban. This incident spotlighted X’s struggle to walk the tightrope between local laws and its free speech agenda. Twitter too has found itself on shaky ground in India‚ being served a notice for non-compliance in 2021 for ignoring account takedown demands connected to civil disorder. The tech giant was threatened with complete shutdown in India and legal action against its Indian employees. The government’s purported threats effectively coerced Twitter into acquiescence‚ though the Indian administration strongly denies making such threats. These occurrences underscore how authoritarian governments harness mass communication platforms like Twitter and X to control narrative and suppress dissent. Across the border‚ Pakistan has been found restraining social platforms predominantly over “inappropriate” content. Pakistan has previously outlawed various apps to address content-related concerns. Drawing from India’s playbook‚ however‚ the country appears to be increasingly inclined toward bans as a means to stifle civil unrest. The post X Faces Government Censorship Orders in Pakistan and India appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Despite facing substantial civil-liberties concerns‚ Ohio has chosen to forge ahead with its utilization of facial-recognition software in state crime investigations. This decision could see the technology in use until at least 2025‚ courting help from a company with a contentious track record. Clearview AI‚ the facial-recognition software company‚ has come under fire numerous times due to its alleged unauthorized accumulation of vast quantities of photos. A fresh two-year agreement between Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office and Clearview AI was inked last September and has now been made public‚ marking a significant shift in the state’s stance on facial-recognition tech. The newly established $38‚780 deal facilitates access for up to 25 members of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation to utilize Clearview’s considerable database for their facial-recognition probes. Boasting billions of photos relinked from publicly accessible resources such as news media‚ mugshots‚ not to mention‚ social media platforms‚ the company’s database is an extensive one. Clearview AI‚ a facial recognition software firm‚ has incessantly come under the scanner for various lawsuits detailing allegations it has hoarded mass amounts of images without requisite permissions. The post Clearview AI: Ohio’s Ongoing Use of a Controversial Photo-Collection Firm for Facial Recognition Searches appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Avast‚ a well-known cybersecurity firm‚ has been confronted with a $16.5 million penalty from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). After the FTC complained alleging Avast of profiting from selling consumer data to third-party entities‚ the company found itself in this predicament. Contrary to the firm’s promise of guarding consumer data against tracking on the web‚ the FTC claimed that they’ve been acting against their word. They’ve allegedly been gathering and marketing user browsing data unbeknownst to the users‚ and additionally misleading them. We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here. Tracing way back to the late 1980s‚ Avast was founded in Czechoslovakia during the Soviet Bloc era. The company’s antivirus and other security software have evolved over the years. The FTC’s complaint points to Avast Limited‚ the UK-based entity‚ and its Czech subsidiary. The agency alleges these entities promised to halt tracking cookies from amassing data and curtail other trackers from following web activity‚ only to later sell that data to other businesses‚ a practice that has been in place since 2014 at least. In addition to this‚ the FTC charged that Avast misled users to believe their data would be shared in an “anonymous and aggregate form‚” which allegedly wasn’t accurate. FTC Chairperson Lina Khan emphasized the sensitivity of browsing history‚ stating‚ “A person’s browsing history can reveal extraordinarily sensitive information‚” including personal details ranging from romantic inclinations‚ financial challenges or unpopular political ideologies‚ to weight management struggles and gambling addiction. Khan further stated that Avast’s actions were not only deceptive but also a piece of unfair practice. Due to the sensitive nature of browsing data‚ she called for enhanced protection. The agency suggested that Avast peddled data to a broad network of over 100 clients which included consulting firms‚ data brokers‚ and advertisement companies. Besides the hefty penalty‚ the firm is also faced with an FTC-imposed ban that prevents them from selling or licensing data for marketing intents. The post Avast Anti-Virus Company Is Fined for Tracking and Selling User Data appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. India’s digital ID system may have its critics among those opposed to digitization of people’s identities‚ but it has received praise from Bill Gates as one of the country’s innovations that are “changing the world.” Gates‚ as well as EU and UN officials‚ refers to such systems as digital public infrastructure (DPI) – a buzzword for introduction of digital ID and payments by 2030. Gates announced on his blog that he is visiting India‚ and made sure to note that the Gates Foundation is involved in what he calls “efforts that are saving millions of lives.” This is a reference to India’s production of another of Gates’ “passions” – vaccines. As for DPI‚ Gates expressed his “admiration” for the country’s massive biometric identity DPI component‚ Aadhaar‚ and the fact that over 12 billion transactions are processed by it. Related: IMF praises India’s controversial digital ID system‚ Aadhaar And‚ the Microsoft founder has another “passion” – agriculture. He made sure to note that he would be visiting a monitoring center where agriculture meets Aadhaar. More whopping numbers: the government uses the center in Odisha that has a registry of 7.5 million farmers to give them “real-time guidance‚” Gates said. It sounds like a surveillance state dream‚ at least as far as the “right” infrastructure is concerned: “Officials can keep track of who is growing what‚” Gates continued‚ but he says this is done for the sake of providing those farmers with “advice.” It has almost become a rule that projects like DPI effectively get tested in developing countries‚ orchestrated by globalist financial institutions like the World Bank. Gates mentions that the developments around the implementation of DPI in Odisha are monitored by the World Bank‚ as well as Ethiopia and Sri Lanka‚ ostensibly in order for the example to be replicated there. Related: Indian citizens that don’t link account numbers to Digital ID will soon face financial blacklisting Last fall‚ the United National Development Program (UNDP) unveiled a campaign called “50-in-5” that aims to “help” 50 countries “design‚ launch‚ and scale components of their digital public infrastructure.” This effort is one of those where the Gates Foundation shows up as a partner‚ while the program is supposed to promote “safe‚ inclusive and interoperable DPI” introduction in those countries. When the campaign was announced‚ India was mentioned as a “success story” in the world of DPIs‚ while Africa was singled out as a particular target for “greater development of DPI.” The post Bill Gates Praises India’s Sweeping Digital ID System as a Model for Other Nations appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Canada’s Justice Minister Arif Virani has advanced a highly controversial bill‚ named Bill C-63‚ proposing comprehensive new legislation aimed at addressing online “hate” speech. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. The bill covers seven types of harmful material‚ from content sexually exploiting or re-victimizing children and survivors‚ to content promoting violence and extremism. But it also outlaws online “hatred‚” so-called “hate speech‚” and forms of deepfakes. In an attempt to decrease the prevalence of harmful content‚ this legislation puts the onus on online platforms to be accountable and transparent about how they handle such content. Platforms like social media and live-streaming services are included under the legislation’s “online services” umbrella. The bill would also create a new “standalone hate crime offense that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament‚ allowing penalties up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself‚” – the briefing explained. The proposed law would also raise the maximum punishments for the four hate offenses from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from two years to five years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment. The Liberal government states that the bill’s proposed regulations centre on the platforms most frequented by Canadians. However‚ the specifics will depend on whether these platforms meet the eventual user thresholds. Over time‚ the government may hold other platforms accountable‚ if these platforms end up posing “a significant risk of harm.” Additionally‚ Bill C-63 proposes establishing a censorship organization‚ which will oversee digital “safety” issues. This organization is anticipated to include a five-member digital safety commission‚ an independent digital safety ombudsman‚ and a digital safety office. These will assist in addressing Canadians’ grievances about platforms’ content moderation decisions. In a recent critique of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s approach to regulating online speech‚ Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre didn’t mince words. He accused Trudeau of labeling any speech he personally dislikes as “hate speech.” This accusation comes amidst discussions surrounding Canada’s proposed online harms bill‚ a legislation echoing similar efforts in other western democracies aimed at curbing hate speech‚ terrorist incitements‚ and violent content online. Poilievre’s comments reflect a growing concern about the potential for such laws to be misused for broader censorship. This concern is not unfounded‚ given precedents in other countries where similar laws have veered into the realm of suppressing free speech. The Conservative leader’s stance suggests a keen awareness of these risks. The term “woke authoritarian agenda” was used by Poilievre to describe the draft of the online harms bill‚ which he and his party are committed to opposing. He draws attention to the Trudeau administration’s handling of the 2022 “Freedom Convoy‚” a protest against COVID-19 restrictions. Poilievre points out the government’s extreme measures‚ including freezing citizens’ bank accounts‚ as indicative of a mindset that easily conflates criticism with hate speech. Highlighting the Trudeau government’s actions during the pandemic‚ Poilievre remarked‚ “Justin Trudeau said anyone who criticized him during the pandemic was engaging in hate speech.” This statement underscores a fear that the government might use the proposed legislation to silence dissent in various scenarios. The post Canada’s Liberal Government Advances “Online Harms” Censorship Bill appeared first on Reclaim The Net.