UK government is seeking to bring “bossware” under control

 The UK government is considering forcing employers in Great Britain to consult workers before rolling out “bossware,” opening the door to new rules covering everything from AI-powered productivity scoring to keystroke logging and biometric surveillance.

The Department for Business and Trade wants to know whether the rules governing workplace surveillance still make sense as software increasingly tracks employees’ activity, measures their performance and supports decisions that affect their working lives.

Ministers haven’t settled on an approach. They’re asking whether non-statutory guidance would be enough, whether a statutory code of practice is needed or whether employers should be legally required to consult recognised trade unions or elected employee representatives before introducing workplace monitoring technology (“WMT”).

The consultation says WMT is becoming more common, citing research in which one in three UK organisations said they actively monitored employees’ digital activity. Two years earlier, ICO research found the figure stood at one in five employers.

The government argues WMT can improve productivity, investment and economic growth when used well. But it also highlights several pitfalls, warning of “risks to privacy and autonomy,” “disproportionate or unnecessary surveillance” and “biased or unfair outcomes” where monitoring systems rely on incomplete or inaccurate data.

Artificial intelligence features prominently throughout the consultation, though the proposals extend well beyond AI alone. It notes that WMT can incorporate automated decision-making and algorithmic management, raising questions about transparency, accountability and the impact of technology on workers.

Exactly what counts as workplace monitoring technology, though, is another question. The government is proposing a broad definition covering everything from CCTV and access control systems to biometric technologies, location tracking, keystroke monitoring, productivity software, and systems that incorporate automated decision-making or AI....<<<Read More>>>...

This Is What Total Control Looks Like

As artificial intelligence rapidly reshapes our world, are we witnessing the construction of an infrastructure that could one day enable unprecedented surveillance, economic control, and digital dependency?

Families are reportedly being forced to sell their homes to make way for massive AI data centers.

New projections warn that AI data centers could add $6.3 billion in electricity costs across 13 states, raising concerns about the future of America’s power grid and who will ultimately bear the financial burden.  

Modern vehicles are becoming rolling computers. We discuss seven ways tomorrow’s cars could monitor, restrict, or control more than just transportation, from software updates to remote access and data collection.  

Flock Safety cameras are rapidly expanding across the nation, creating an ever-growing network capable of tracking vehicle movements. What does this mean for privacy, freedom, and the future of mass surveillance?

While these technologies may offer legitimate benefits, they also raise serious questions. Could the convergence of AI, smart infrastructure, digital identification, surveillance networks, and connected vehicles become part of the technological framework described in Bible prophecy?...<<<Read More>>>...

New Zealand: Any method to ban under-16s from social media will drift into digital IDs for everyone

 Initially, as part of the proposed social media ban on under-16s, the New Zealand government considered a restriction or outright ban on using VPNs.

The Government has since backed down on VPNs but the central issue remains: any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.

Using age verification, for example, to limit under-16s access to online content will always drift into digital IDs for everyone and state control over the internet.

The proposed under-16 social media ban is being sold as child protection. That is the attractive part of the policy. Most parents know smartphones and social media can be harmful, addictive and corrosive for young people. But the political danger is that a policy aimed at children may become a system of online control for everyone.

The Post initially reported that the government was considering a VPN ban or restrictions as part of the policy work. National’s Education Minister Erica Stanford has since said she is not pursuing VPN restrictions, after ACT made clear it would block any such move.

VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. It encrypts a user’s internet connection and can make their device appear to be accessing the internet from another location.

ACT leader David Seymour took to X to say that “the government” is not pursuing such a thing. He said National MPs had been keen on a VPN ban at select committee, while Stanford has been developing proposals to ban under-16s from social media.

But the question remains how the government plans to enforce an under-16 social media ban without pushing adults toward online age checks, identity verification or other forms of digital access control....<<<Read More>>>...

European Parliament Imposes Mass Electronic Surveillance Regulation After a Majority Votes it Down Three Times

 That title is polemical, okay? But it’s morally right.

If anybody cares, what actually happened is that an extension of the European Union’s mass surveillance regulation known as Chat Control 1.0 failed to make it out of the European Parliament twice in March. 

Unable to summon a clear parliamentary majority, advocates (mostly in the centre-Right European People’s Party (EPP)) turned to the European Council, which adopted the failed Chat Control 1.0 renewal on July 2nd. The Council’s position hardens automatically into law unless the European Parliament can summon an absolute majority to stop it. 

To forestall any such majority from forming, the EPP on Tuesday moved with member state backing for urgent procedure, angling to force their scheme through in the last days before the summer holiday, after many MEPs had already left. The parliament narrowly approved the urgent procedure, and in consequence there were not enough votes to stop Chat Control 1.0 when it came for a vote today. Hours ago, a majority of 314 MEPs voted to stop Chat Control against the wishes of the Council, while a minority of 276 voted to let it happen. Because 314 is less than the absolute majority of 361, Chat Control 1.0 passed even though most MEPs present didn’t want it to.

It was a sleazy vote, not least because it’s far from clear this procedural manoeuvre was even appropriate in this case. Also, electronic surveillance is bad, but if we are honest with ourselves this battle was already lost.

Chat Control 1.0 was first instated in 2021 as a temporary exemption to the ePrivacy Directive of the EU, allowing messaging services and online platforms to scan chats and other electronic communications for child sexual abuse material. The exemption expired in April, but various platforms have continued their surveillance with no legal basis in the intervening months. Now their formal permission to scan our private communications has been restored and extended through April 2028. We are, in other words, merely returning to the prior regime.

Chat Control 1.0 is a temporary stopgap while the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council try to negotiate their Child Sexual Abuse Regulation, or Chat Control 2.0. As envisioned by the Commission, this permanent law would not merely allow platforms to scan private communications for child sex abuse material, but require them to do so; would require additional AI-assisted automated scanning not only for known child pornography but also for such vaguely defined activities as ‘grooming’; and would extend scanning to end-to-end encrypted services like Signal via mandatory monitoring on the client side. This insane proposal has been watered down over the years, in large part because of parliamentary opposition, but it’s coming in some form. We’re getting Chat Control 2.0 before Chat Control 1.0 expires, and Chat Control 2.0 will be at least somewhat worse....<<<Read More>>>...

The Anti-Privacy Serpent Devouring Our Freedoms

Do you ever hear a voice, hissing and persuasive like the snake which allegedly talked Eve into the Fall of Man, saying things like: “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear. It’s progress – part of modern life. Go on, give us your personal information. Oh, and your fingerprints. And an iris scan. You might as well. In any case, it’s inevitable. There’s nothing you can do.”

This is the voice of anti-privacy, the means by which governments, corporations and tech platforms persuade us to hand over levels of personal information unthinkable until very recently. It’s a voice that’s got louder and more insistent as those in control of our data have realised that digitalisation opens the door to previously undreamed-of levels of money and power.

Maybe, like me, you’ve become somewhat immune to that voice and hear both desperation and the desire to dominate in its tones. You’ve already had worrying glimpses of the uses to which your personal information could be put and you can see how, collected en masse and harnessed to new state powers, public data could create a system of control never before seen on earth. At the same time, you hear the whisperings of the anti-privacy voice around you as your fellow citizens repeat its casuistic deceptions. Sometimes it sounds like Mephistopheles offering a deal: “If you supply Google with data, we’ll give you a free email… if you get a loyalty card, you can pay ‘member’s prices’… if you install a smart meter, we might reduce your energy bills.”

The sibilant voice of anti-privacy masks the curious inversion that is taking place. Since the earliest days of the internet, we’ve been told to protect our data from bad actors such as financial scammers, hackers, identity thieves and geopolitical baddies. We are repeatedly warned against giving personal information unless we are absolutely sure who will be using it and how. We’ve been urged to abide by GDPR, put privacy policies on our websites and use tools such as Virtual Private Networks to encrypt our data. Apple, my laptop provider of choice since the early 2000s, has made privacy central to its brand, with protections built into its operating systems and a policy of not selling data to third parties.

Yet suddenly we’re being told we must hand over personal information to organisations linked to networks of unknown parties. There’s talk of restrictions on VPNs to stop people from getting round the identity checks necessary for a ban on social media for children. Such restrictions would only apply to ordinary citizens: since most organisations use VPNs, it would be privacy as usual for government bodies. This fact makes the terms of the new deal crystal clear: what’s ours is theirs and what’s theirs remains their own....<<<Read More>>>...

Will Your Phone Allow You to Read This Article?

 How old are you? Sorry to ask such a personal question but I need to check you are old enough to read this article. I can’t remember the last time I was asked if I was old enough for anything, so it was a shock when I was asked last week. But not by a person, by my phone, just after it automatically installed the Apple iOS 26.4 update. It was more than asking, it needed verification: ID, credit cards, the usual list. Why? We all know why, don’t we? Or do we?

Let’s start with what is and is not changing. The most recent iOS update on iPhones and iPads in the UK asks the owner to log in to their Apple account (which means they identify themselves), then “Confirm You are 18+”. It explains why: “to change content restrictions”, so it complies with GDPR (you must plainly state your purpose for requesting personal data) and you cannot just self-certify an affirmative answer, you need to offer what in digital ID circles is known as a verifiable credential: your Apple account, a credit card or government issued ID card. This looks like a requirement from the UK Online Safety Act which requires “highly effective” age verification. You do get the option to not confirm (again keeping it GDPR compliant) in which case you will find in your phone’s settings that the content and privacy restrictions that default to OFF are instead now ON and the web content setting has been set to “Limit Adult Websites”. If you try to change that you will be prompted again to confirm your age. Choosing to not confirm your age and not being able to do so for whatever reason end up with the same status: you cannot access ‘adult’ content on the web. There ain’t no way round it other than verifying your 18+ status. Forget VPNs and forget “privacy preserving” browsers such as DuckDuckGo, Brave or even Tor.

What is going on? Clearly there is a political aspect to this but as this is an article from your IT correspondent let’s start with the tech. How can it affect all browsers, especially ones not supplied by Apple? Despite appearances to the contrary, there are only really three web browsers: Blink with 70% market share which you may know better as Chrome, Edge, Opera or Brave; Gecko from Mozilla in the form of Firefox and finally WebKit, presented as Safari. But on Apple mobile devices outside the EU, Apple mandates all browsers to use their WebKit WKWebView API for rendering and JavaScript. That means Chrome, Firefox, DuckDuckGo even Tor on your iPhone render web pages just the same as Safari under the covers. That gives Apple mobile devices a unique pinch point where all web content can be filtered and the 26.4 update uses it. This pinch point is only on Apple mobile devices, so not in its desktops and of course not in the non-Apple Android, Windows or Linux eco systems....<<<Read More>>>...

Substack expands censorship to Australian users

 On Wednesday, Australian Substack authors received a message: “Substack is introducing age verification steps for readers in Australia.”

“To say that I was flabbergasted is an understatement,” author of Informed Choice Meryl Dorey said, because “Substack is NOT social media. And it is NOT being required by the Australian Reichstag to ask for age verification.”

Last week, we noted that Substack had caved into the UK censorship regime and was restricting the content that UK users can access unless they verified their age with either a selfie or a government-approved ID.

Age verification is not about keeping children “safe,” it is about control: age verification online is increasingly being integrated with digital ID systems, particularly through government-backed digital identity wallets, and is becoming a foundational component of digital ID systems with several countries, including the US, European Union member states, the UK and Australia, advancing digital ID frameworks where age verification is a core function.

For example, the GOV.UK Wallet is under development and will be used for identity verification, with age verification being a key application. And in Australia, the Digital ID Act 2024 established the Australian Government Digital ID System, allows users to prove identity online....<<<Read More>>>...

Online Safety Act: Wikipedia will not comply, says co-founder Jimmy Wales

 Jimmy Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia. Speaking of Ofcom’s determination to implement the UK’s Online Safety Act, Wales said:

“We’re in talks with Ofcom, but we will not be identifying users under any circumstances. We will not be age-gating Wikipedia under any circumstances. So, if it comes to that, it’s going to be an interesting showdown, because we’re going to just refuse to do it. Politically, what are they going to do? They could block Wikipedia. Good luck with that.

“We didn’t cave into the Turkish government; we didn’t cave into the Chinese government. We have users we know of who are editing in Iran. We have users who are editing in Russia. Their personal safety depends on their privacy. And we think it’s a human rights issue that we’re not going to identify those people.”...<<<Read More>>>....

Digital ID: You’ll Own Nothing and Scan Everything

 You can already hear it, can’t you? The dreary chorus of ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear.’

Soon your neighbour, your colleague, and that bloke in the pub will all sound like NPCs reciting the gospel of Digital ID.

And if you’re happy to trade liberty for ignorance, don’t whimper when your life resembles Kim Jong-un’s playpen with a Tesco Clubcard.

Welcome to Brave New Blighty, where your papers are digital, your wallet is monitored, and your freedom is conditional. Great Britain is teetering on the brink of ushering in a national digital ID system.

Yes, the same Britain that once prided itself on civil liberties, privacy, and a general disdain for government overreach. Now, our political class, like a dodgy Carry On character with a penchant for surveillance, is dangling the shiny promise of “convenience” while quietly sliding the handcuffs into place.

Think back, if your memory hasn’t been wiped by the Ministry of Health. During the pandemic, we got a taste of digital control with those charming little vaccine passports. Want to enter a venue? Flash your app. Want to fly, work, or exist in polite society? Better have your QR code scanned, jab status verified, and obedience levels recalibrated.

That little COVID experiment was a not-so-dry run for a far more sinister project.

The digital ID being proposed is not some benign bit of modern admin. It is, quite frankly, a blueprint for technocratic control. It won’t stop with your name and date of birth. Oh no.

Soon, your biometric data, spending habits, health records, social media activity, and ideological alignment could be packed into your shiny new BritCard.

Want to buy a pint or a sausage roll? Better scan in first. Had too many pints this week? Sorry, your cholesterol’s high and your carbon credits are low. Try again next month.

Now imagine the government deciding you’ve said something “hateful” (which is Newspeak for “unpopular”). Suddenly, your car won’t start. Your social media is locked. Your travel rights revoked. It’s not a stretch of the imagination. This is a roadmap, and we’re already halfway there.

During the COVID era, the Canadian government showed us what financial control looks like in real time: freezing the bank accounts of protesters and their supporters with the flick of a bureaucratic switch....<<<Read More>>>...

How state-sponsored spooks meddle with free speech

 A SHADOWY state agency used to monitor lawful but dissenting speech during the covid lockdowns has now been implicated in efforts to suppress online criticism of immigration policy, multiculturalism and ‘two-tier policing’ during the Southport riots in August last year.

Emails disclosed in the US by Congressman Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, as part of an investigation into transnational censorship, reveal that officials within a Whitehall monitoring unit flagged social media posts to major platforms, warning that certain content was ‘exacerbating tensions’ during a period of widespread civil unrest.

The unit, the National Security and Online Information Team (NSOIT), operates within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) under the authority of minister Peter Kyle. Formerly known as the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), it was established to monitor foreign influence campaigns but saw its remit expanded during the covid pandemic to include lawful domestic speech, including public health criticism and lockdown scepticism. Conservative MP David Davis was among several public figures cited in CDU files as ‘critical of the Government’ after questioning the mathematical reasoning behind Imperial College London’s pandemic modelling.

 One of the messages released by the US House Judiciary Committee was sent on August 3, 2024 – the worst weekend of the riots – and warned of ‘significant volumes of anti-immigrant content’ as well as ‘concerning narratives about the police and a “two-tier” system that we are seeing across the online environment’. The email listed several examples of social media content, including one said to ‘misrepresent the government’s response to further a sense of division’. Although none of the posts was alleged to breach the law, DSIT pressed TikTok to confirm ‘what content you are seeing across your platform’ and ‘any measures you have taken in response’, adding: ‘We’d be grateful if you could come back to us on those two points as soon as you are able to.’...<<<Read More>>>....

Age-Restricted Taxi Tracking? The Absurd Consequences of the Online Safety Bill

 I was recently travelling in the UK and, after a lot of sightseeing on foot, decided to order a taxi to go back to my hotel.

I searched the internet for a local taxi firm and found one with relative ease. I called the number and went through an automated process which worked well. I managed to book a taxi quickly. The computer-generated voice told me that my taxi was on its way. I was sent a link so that I could monitor the progress of my taxi. The message also said that I would know the taxi driver’s name and the type of vehicle and registration number that was on its way.

When I clicked on the link I was forwarded to this:

Australian Senate rejects age verification for search engine users in surprise bipartisan push

 An urgent motion to block the rollout of mandatory age verification for search engine users has passed Australia's Senate with overwhelming cross-party support.

The motion, spearheaded by United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet, stems from a recommendation by the federal eSafety Commissioner, who in early July urged the government to consider age verification requirements for users signed into search engines like Google and Bing. Verification methods under discussion included ID checks, biometric scanning, credit card authentication, parental vouching, AI-powered estimations or third-party verification services, raising immediate red flags for privacy advocates.

In a speech to the Senate on July 29, Babet acknowledged the importance of child safety but warned that the proposed measures posed a fundamental threat to Australians' civil liberties.

"Let me say from the outset that protecting children online is a moral imperative," he said. "Measures like safe-search filters for minors, better parental controls and the restriction of harmful content are of course welcome, but let's not kid ourselves – this is not about protecting children, it is about building a surveillance infrastructure under the cover of safety."...<<<Read More>>>....

Parents 'shell-shocked' after being arrested for complaining about daughter's school

The parents of a nine-year-old girl have said they were held at a police station for 11 hours because they complained about their daughter's primary school.

Maxie Allen and his partner, Rosalind Levine, said they were arrested and detained on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property.

The couple said they had previously been banned from entering Cowley Hill primary school in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire after criticising the school's headteacher and leadership in a parents' WhatsApp group, according to the Times.

The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that they claimed had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors.

Hertfordshire police said the arrests "were necessary to fully investigate the allegations as is routine in these types of matters".

"Following further investigations, officers deemed that no further action should be taken due to insufficient evidence," they added....<<<Read More>>>...

Online Safety Act: The truth behind one of UK’s most authoritarian pieces of legislation yet

 The Online Safety Act, which originated in 2017 after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell, has evolved to include provisions which introduce a new criminal offence for “knowingly sending false information” that causes harm and criminalising sending “seriously threatening messages” online. Not just for content targeting children but adults as well.

The Act also grants significant power to Ofcom, the government-approved regulator, and exempts “recognised news publishers” from fines for potentially harmful material, while independent journalists, citizen journalists and social media commentators face content restrictions.

It gives significant censorship powers to a single civil servant, Ofcom’s Melanie Dawes, and grants police chiefs the power to arrest citizens for sending “false communications” or “threatening messages” online, which has been used to restrict free speech.

The Act compromises privacy rights by forcing online platforms to deploy technology that detects and removes illegal content, even within end-to-end encrypted messages, and requires age verification for users....<<<Read More>>>...

Another Removal

 Another post has been taken down by Blogger due to 'misleading content' - Misleading content related to harmful health practices: misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm.

YET ... the post in question was written by an eminent source and relates to an accurate diagnosis of the mRNA vaccines ....

THEREFORE - big brother does not wish this information to appear on blogger yet it is still available on the original web site ...

Australia’s social media age verification bill is a Trojan Horse to implement Government controlled biometric digital ID

Yesterday, the Australian government introduced legislation in Parliament that would ban children under 16 from accessing social media platforms. The claim is the bill is to protect young people from the negative impacts of excessive social media use, including mental health concerns, body image issues and exposure to harmful content. But this is the excuse, not the motive.

The proposed law is an amendment to Australia’s Online Safety Act. It sets a minimum age limit of 16 for accessing social media platforms. If passed, the law would outline some of the toughest controls so far on social media platforms imposed by a country.

The obvious problem with such a bill, without seeing any details, is what’s to stop the Government from expanding the law into other areas? Nothing. As Freezenet explains a very familiar maxim that is well known among those who work for the Government, “Once you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Until the bill was introduced into parliament, details of how the ban would actually work had been scarce. “Today’s bill provides a more complete picture. But many ambiguities – and problems – still remain,” The Conversation noted.

Under the proposed law, social media companies will be required to demonstrate they are taking “reasonable steps” to prevent access for under-16s. Penalties will be imposed on platforms that fail to comply. The eSafety Commissioner will be responsible for enforcing the new laws and monitoring compliance. The bill proposes a fine of up to AU$50 million on social media platforms if they fail to uphold the ban.

Interestingly, platforms which are most likely to be used by children without adult supervision are exempt. According to The Conversation the bill “includes an exclusion framework that exempts messaging apps … online gaming platforms and services with the ‘primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users’.” Some platforms that will be exempt include Google-owned YouTube, Google Classroom, Meta’s WhatsApp and Headspace, a non-profit organisation for youth mental health established by the Australian Government in 2006.

Additionally, “the bill won’t stop people under 16 from watching videos on YouTube or seeing content on Facebook – it is primarily designed to stop them from making an account.”...<<<Read More>>>...

Disinformation Isn’t the Problem. Government Coverups and Censorship Are the Problem

 In a perfect example of the Nanny State mindset at work, Hillary Clinton insists that the powers-that-be need “total control” in order to make the internet a safer place for users and protect us harm.

Clinton is not alone in her distaste for unregulated, free speech online.

A bipartisan chorus that includes both presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump has long clamored to weaken or do away with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which essentially acts as a bulwark against online censorship.

It’s a complicated legal issue that involves debates over immunity, liability, net neutrality and whether or not internet sites are publishers with editorial responsibility for the content posted to their sites, but really, it comes down to the tug-of-war over where censorship (corporate and government) begins and free speech ends.

As Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes for Reason, “What both the right and left attacks on the provision share is a willingness to use whatever excuses resonate—saving children, stopping bias, preventing terrorism, misogyny, and religious intolerance—to ensure more centralized control of online speech. They may couch these in partisan terms that play well with their respective bases, but their aim is essentially the same.”

In other words, the government will use any excuse to suppress dissent and control the narrative....<<<Read More>>>...

The Foreboding UN Convention on Cybercrime

The UN committee approved the text of the Convention on Combating Cybercrime. Human rights organizations and information technology experts have called it a threat to democracy and the free world.

“One of the world’s most dangerous surveillance treaties was approved with a standing ovation,” wrote Austrian digital rights group Epicenter Works.

The UN General Assembly is now due to vote on the adoption of the Convention in September.

“It can be assumed that the treaty will be accepted without difficulty at the UN General Assembly in September, and will thus be officially considered a UN convention. After that, it will be available for signature and subsequently it can be ratified,” said political advisor Tanja Fachathalerová. “It can be assumed that it will not be a big problem to achieve the necessary forty ratifications, which are necessary for the treaty to enter into force.”

Legitimization of Repression against Journalists and Opponents
The proposed international treaty aims to combat cybercrime and improve international cooperation between law enforcement agencies. However, more than a hundred human and civil rights organizations around the world have warned of a serious threat to human rights and criticized the fact that the text of the treaty lacks adequate safeguards. According to them, the planned agreement would oblige UN member states to introduce comprehensive measures for the supervision of a wide range of crimes.

“The contract is really a surveillance agreement with too few provisions on data protection and human rights. In practice, it legitimizes the more repressive measures against political opponents or journalists that we now see in authoritarian states,” writes the netzpolitik.org server.

China and Russia Stood at the Beginning of the Convention
It all started with a UN resolution initiated in 2019 by Russia, China, and other countries (such as Iran, Egypt, Sudan, and Uzbekistan) with 88 votes in favor, 58 against, and 34 abstentions.

European states have proposed changes, but according to experts, the resulting compromise does not even meet the conditions necessary to preserve privacy and protect human rights.

Unfortunately, a data access treaty has been drawn up that will allow governments around the world to exchange citizens’ personal information in perpetual secrecy in the event of any crime the two governments agree is ‘serious.’ This would include eavesdropping on location and real-time communications around the world, and force IT workers to divulge passwords or other access keys that would compromise the security of global systems that billions of people rely on every day. And it’s not just private sector systems – government systems are also at risk,” said Nick Ashton-Hart, Digital Economy Policy Director at APCO, who is also leading the Cybersecurity Tech Accord delegation to the Convention negotiations.

The Threat of Criminal Prosecution of Journalists and White Hackers
The Ashton-Hart treaty also puts journalists and whistleblowers at risk of prosecution. The International Press Institute was so concerned about this risk that it placed a full-page ad in the Washington Post. Independent security experts around the world also warned in February that they could face criminal prosecution for their work protecting IT systems from cybercriminals under the draft Convention....<<<Read More>>>...

Courts are increasingly linking “climate change” with human rights

 The fabricated effects of climate change are being tied to so-called human rights in law cases across the world. Legal precedents are being set. They may pretend it is to “save the world” but the real target is our rights and freedoms.

On 29 March, the United Nations General Assembly (“UNGA”) adopted the resolution A/77/L.58 requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) on the obligations of countries that are members of the United Nations (“UN”) regarding climate change.

Part of the request relates to the human rights implications of climate change. It references to international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Commenting on the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in favour of a small group of elderly Swiss women who were backed by Greenpeace, the Off Guardian offered an explanation of why climate change is being linked to human rights.

By tying climate change to human rights, governments can justify enforcing increasingly strict climate change policies while simultaneously making it appear that the judiciary is forcing their hand.

Now they can effectively claim “You’ve got to switch to an electric car, or you’re infringing other people’s human rights”, but also, “don’t blame us our hands are tied by judges.”

It also enables a propaganda campaign of escalating divisive language, mirroring the vaccinated vs unvaccinated messaging during the “pandemic.”

Remember how we were told, “The unvaccinated are filling ICUs and making another lockdown more likely”? Well, in the future, that will become “climate change deniers are violating your human rights by refusing to use a smart meter.”...<<<Read More>>>...

British government mulling SOCIAL MEDIA BAN for teenagers 16 and younger

The British government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is considering a crackdown on social media use for teenagers aged 16 and younger – with a ban said to be one of the options on the table.

Despite bringing new controls with the Online Safety Act (OSA) which received Parliament approval in October, ministers are considering the pros and cons of further actions to limit children’s exposure to social media’s harmful content.

British Science Secretary Michelle Donelan said the legislation meant the U.K. would become "the safest place to be online in the world." She added that the OSA's passage "will go down as an historic moment that ensures the online safety of British society not only now, but for decades to come."

The British government is reportedly ready to begin a consultation in January of next year to look at the evidence of social media harm to young teens. According to Bloomberg, a ban on social media use by those under 16 and improved parental controls are two options under discussion.

"We're looking at ways to empower parents, rather than crack down on anything in particular," said a government spokesperson. "We've identified that there is a gap in research, so we'll be looking at what more research into it needs to be done. But nothing is yet signed off by ministers."...<<<Read More>>>...