activistpost--2020-06-10--The Union of the Unwanted — 30 Alternative Media Podcasters Discuss The Social Media Censorship

The Union of the Unwanted mega group podcast is now available !
Sam Tripoli ( Tin Foil Hat ) , Ricky Varandas ( The Ripple Effect ) , Midnight Mike ( OBDM ) , and Charlie Robinson ( Macroaggressions ) had a crazy idea of getting a large group together to discuss the censorship of the alternative media .
Last night it happened .
Please share this video .
This discussion needs to happen now before it is too late .
James Corbett , Ben Swann , Greg Carlwood , Those Conspiracy Guys , The Conspiracy Farm , Monica Perez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tim Picciott , Ernest Hancock , Red Pill 78 , Jay Dyer , OBDM , Issac Weishaupt , Jason Bermas , XG , Tommy G , Kate Awakening , Scott DeGroat , Fame , Jamie Dlux , and more .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markets today .

By Macroagressions with Charlie Robinson
The Union of the Unwanted mega group podcast is now available! Sam Tripoli (Tin Foil Hat), Ricky Varandas (The Ripple Effect), Midnight Mike (OBDM), and Charlie Robinson (Macroaggressions) had a crazy idea of getting a large group together to discuss the censorship of the alternative media. Last night it happened.
Please share this video. This discussion needs to happen now before it is too late.
Special guests include:
James Corbett, Ben Swann, Greg Carlwood, Those Conspiracy Guys, The Conspiracy Farm, Monica Perez, Luke Rudkowski, Josh Sigurdson, Tim Picciott, Ernest Hancock, Red Pill 78, Jay Dyer, OBDM, Issac Weishaupt, Jason Bermas, XG, Tommy G, Kate Awakening, Scott DeGroat, Fame, Jamie Dlux, and more.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-10--25,000 More Store Closures Expected As Lockdown-fueled “Retail Apocalypse” Rolls On

The one discussion bulls chose to ignore while equity markets soar to new highs is the permanent economic damage story due to months of coronavirus lockdowns .
A new report shows tens of thousands of brick and mortar shops could close their doors this year , which would indicate the “ retail apocalypse ” is accelerating .
The report , commissioned by Coresight Research , forecasts that in 2020 , upwards of 25,000 retailers could shutter operations after months of lockdowns decimated mall traffic — collapsing store sales and resulting in delinquent rent payments .
Even before the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly bad in 2019 , ” with about 10,000 stores closed for good .
Most of the closures were mall-based retailers as consumerism and spending shifted online .
Lockdowns , in the last few months , accelerated the shift to buying items online while strict social distancing rules enforced by the government led to non-essential shop closures .
Coresight CEO Deborah Weinswig wrote in the report , a closure wave of “ anchor tenants ” in shopping malls will lead to surrounding shops closing up as well .
She said if that happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 25,000 shops to close by year-end .
In early June , Simon Property Group , one of the largest mall operators in the US , sued GAP , its largest tenant , claiming the retailer failed to pay more than $ 65.9 million in rent and other charges during shutdowns .
The lawsuit “ highlights the mounting tension between retail landlords and their tenants , many of which stopped paying rent after the crisis forced them to shut stores , ” CNBC noted .
So far , US retailers have planned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Pier 1 Imports , Neiman Marcus , Tuesday Morning , JC Penney , Stage Stores , and L. Brands .
Before the virus outbreak , Coresight was already forecasting 15,000 stores would close this year .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income Store closures this year have already triggered an unprecedented implosion in US commercial real estate .
The latest remittance data by Trepp shows a massive surge in newly delinquent CMBS loans .
CMBS Delinquency Rate registered at 2.29 % in April , in May the Delinquency Rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this metric since 2009 .
The May reading was 7.15 % , a jump of 481 basis points over the April number .
Almost 5 % of that number is represented by loans in the 30-day delinquent bucket , ” we said last week .
As stores close up shop , jobs are also lost , which we recently noted , 18 million workers could be at risk of permanent job loss .
And if you ’ re curious to learn just how big the impending commercial real estate bust will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Sizing The Commercial Real Estate Bust.
” Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
The one discussion bulls chose to ignore while equity markets soar to new highs is the permanent economic damage story due to months of coronavirus lockdowns. A new report shows tens of thousands of brick and mortar shops could close their doors this year, which would indicate the “retail apocalypse” is accelerating.
The report, commissioned by Coresight Research, forecasts that in 2020, upwards of 25,000 retailers could shutter operations after months of lockdowns decimated mall traffic — collapsing store sales and resulting in delinquent rent payments.
Even before the pandemic, we noted the “retail apocalypse was particularly bad in 2019,” with about 10,000 stores closed for good. Most of the closures were mall-based retailers as consumerism and spending shifted online. Lockdowns, in the last few months, accelerated the shift to buying items online while strict social distancing rules enforced by the government led to non-essential shop closures.
Coresight CEO Deborah Weinswig wrote in the report, a closure wave of “anchor tenants” in shopping malls will lead to surrounding shops closing up as well. She said if that happens, her firm would then expect 20,000 to 25,000 shops to close by year-end.
“Department and large apparel-chain store closures in malls will, therefore, create a ripple effect that spells bad news for malls,” Weinswig said.
In early June, Simon Property Group, one of the largest mall operators in the US, sued GAP, its largest tenant, claiming the retailer failed to pay more than $65.9 million in rent and other charges during shutdowns.
The lawsuit “highlights the mounting tension between retail landlords and their tenants, many of which stopped paying rent after the crisis forced them to shut stores,” CNBC noted.
So far, US retailers have planned about 4,000 permanent store closures, with hundreds from Pier 1 Imports, Neiman Marcus, Tuesday Morning, JC Penney, Stage Stores, and L. Brands. Before the virus outbreak, Coresight was already forecasting 15,000 stores would close this year.
Store closures this year have already triggered an unprecedented implosion in US commercial real estate. The latest remittance data by Trepp shows a massive surge in newly delinquent CMBS loans.
CMBS Delinquency Rate registered at 2.29% in April, in May the Delinquency Rate logged its largest increase in the history of this metric since 2009. The May reading was 7.15%, a jump of 481 basis points over the April number. Almost 5% of that number is represented by loans in the 30-day delinquent bucket,” we said last week.
As stores close up shop, jobs are also lost, which we recently noted, 18 million workers could be at risk of permanent job loss.
And if you’re curious to learn just how big the impending commercial real estate bust will be, your questions will be answered in “Sizing The Commercial Real Estate Bust.”
Source: ZeroHedge
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-10--Digital Security Advice for Journalists Covering the Protests Against Police Violence

This guide is an overview of digital security considerations specific to journalists covering protests .
For EFF ’ s comprehensive guide to digital security , including advice for activists and protesters , visit ssd.eff.org .
Legal advice in this post is specific to the United States .
As the international protests against police killings enter their third week , the public has been exposed to shocking videos of law enforcement wielding violence against not only demonstrators , but also the journalists who are tasked with documenting this historic moment .
EFF recently issued Surveillance Self-Defense tips for protesters who may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either through mass surveillance of crowds or through the seizure of their devices .
However , these tips don ’ t always reflect the reality of how journalists may need to do their jobs and the unique threats journalists face .
In this blog post , we attempt to address the digital security of news gatherers after speaking with reporters , photographers , and live streamers who are on the ground , risking everything to document these protests .
When we talk about security planning or “ threat modeling , ” we mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What do you have that you need to protect ?
From what or whom do you need to protect it ?
What is the likelihood you will need to protect it ?
What are the consequences if you fail to protect it , and what are the trade-offs you ’ re willing to make in order to protect it ?
With the threat model of a protester , we often pay special attention to the need to protect the anonymity and location of those who could face retaliation for exercising their rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their rights violated as police investigate the actions of others .
This means that we often recommend protesters leave their devices at home , use a temporary device , or keep their devices in airplane mode .
A journalist , however , is generally more open about where they are and when , either through the credits on the photographs they publish or the bylines on the articles they write .
And because many need to get out their stories rapidly or even in real time , going device-free or keeping devices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptable option .
The journalist ’ s protest threat model is complex .
First , they have to worry about the police .
Law enforcement could seize their devices , which in turn could expose their sources and research in addition to their personal information , and could separate them from their work product for months .
Journalists could also find that police may follow their digital footprint to investigate sources ( as the Feds did when Sean Penn interviewed Joaquín “ El Chapo ” Guzmán , despite Penn taking some security precautions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about experiences with thieves who use protests as cover , such as having laptops and other equipment stolen from their cars while they are in the field .
Finally , journalists ( especially photographers ) also must remain aware that they may be confronted by protesters themselves , who may be trying to protect their images as part of their own threat models .
( Again , it ’ s important to consider the likelihood of the threat : the Freedom of the Press Foundation ’ s research has found that the overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by police , not protesters . )
Each of these threats may require taking different steps to secure your data .
And , the steps needed will depend , too , on the form of your news gathering and the tools that you rely on in the field , whether that is taking photographs , conducting interviews , or live streaming video .
To protect yourself and your data , you will need you to think carefully about the kind of journalism you ’ re doing ( say advocacy journalism vs. traditional daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re joining , and the particular risks that you may face .
There is only one piece of advice that we believe holds for all journalists : think ahead and be deliberate .
Consider the threats and make a decision about the risks and trade-offs .
In doing so , here are some steps to consider .
Minimize your digital content at risk .
Be prepared for the possibility that if you are arrested , police may confiscate your devices , and may keep them long after you are released to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of sensitive personal and professional information you carry in order to minimize the risk of exposure .
If practicable , you may consider leaving personal devices at home and instead carrying a work or burner phone with minimal personal information on it .
If that is not possible , consider minimizing the amount of sensitive information available by logging out of email , social media apps , and other apps containing data that you would not want the police or others to access .
Encrypt devices with a long passcode where possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your phone , and a long passcode is significantly more difficult to crack .
Keep them and others out of your devices by protecting them with strong passcodes of 8-12 random characters that are easy for you to remember .
Deactivate touch unlock and face ID on your devices .
In the U.S. , law currently provides stronger protection against police forcing you to enter a passcode than forcing you to biometrically unlock your device .
Using a long passcode may be less convenient , but iOS and Android both allow you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone .
See the “ Take photos and videos without unlocking your device ” section of our Attending a Protest SSD guide .
End-to-end encrypted messaging .
By using end-to-end encrypted messaging , such as Signal ( available for iOS and Android ) , you are making it far more difficult for law enforcement to obtain and read your communications , be it between you and your sources , your editorial team , or your personal contacts .
You will want to make sure everyone on your newsgathering team has the same app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact information in advance of the protest .
You may also find it useful to have several different encrypted messaging systems installed , since protesters and other sources may be using other apps .
Many of these apps , including Signal , provide an option to have messages disappear anywhere from ten seconds to a week after they are first read , which will protect your communications if the police or others breach your phone .
Press passes .
Many journalists won ’ t enter a volatile situation like a protest without having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a journalism association , or the local government .
A press pass certainly can be useful in establishing your identity as a journalist .
However , to obtain a government or police-issued press pass , it ’ s important to recognize a large trade-off : you may need to provide personal information or submit to a background check .
Hide your notifications .
Consider turning off notifications , or , at minimum , restricting messaging apps from displaying the content of messages and message sender information .
If your phone is seized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to worry about someone easily reading your private communications .
Back up your data before the protest .
If your device is lost , stolen , or confiscated by police , you will be glad to have a backup of your information stored in a safe place .
Back up your data the protest .
If you are taking photos , video , or notes on a phone or other digital device during the protest , consider trying to back up your work in real time .
This could include emailing important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cloud storage while in the field .
If your phone or camera is lost , stolen , or seized , you won ’ t lose your own coverage of what took place .
But prepare for the possibility during the protest , the cell phone network may be oversaturated , unavailable , or slow .
Assume digital cameras are not encrypted .
Few digital cameras provide the ability to encrypt .
It is safe to assume that photos and videos taken with a digital camera will be stored unencrypted , unless explicitly stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some cameras provide the capability to store your photos simultaneously on two cards .
Taking advantage of this capability may be obvious to many photographers , who know that a memory card can fail just when you need it most .
However , there is also a digital security element : by cycling through memory cards regularly , you are ensuring that you will not lose all of your photographs if your camera itself is seized or damaged .
If you are detained by police , refuse to consent to a search of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see your phone , you have the right to refuse your consent and to refuse to give them your passcode .
Note , however , that police may still seize it to try to break into and search it later .
For more resources on this issue , visit EFF ’ s Surveillance Self-Defense Guide , the Committee to Protect Journalists , and Freedom of the Press Foundation .
Are you a journalist covering the protests ?
We would appreciate feedback and to hear about any other practices you ’ ve developed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you are in need of legal assistance in relation to your work reporting on the protests , we may be able to find you some help .
Email us at [ email protected ] Naomi is an attorney specializing in free speech litigation .
Prior to joining EFF , she worked on issues of free speech , privacy , and government transparency at the ACLU .
Naomi graduated from Harvard Law School and Princeton University , and served as a law clerk to the Honorable David J. Barron of the U.S. Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Honorable Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts .
As EFF ’ s senior investigative researcher , Dave Maass is a muckraker/noisemaker , covering issues related to police surveillance , free speech , transparency , and government accountability .
In addition to leading deep-dive investigations , Dave coordinates large-scale public records campaigns , advocates on state legislation , and compiles The Foilies , EFF ’ s annual tongue-in-cheek awards for outrageous responses to FOIA requests .
He sometimes represents EFF in digital rights-themed cosplay at Dragon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s first science fiction collection , Pwning Tomorrow .
He also researches virtual reality as part of the team that developed Spot the Surveillance , EFF ’ s first VR experience .
Contact him with questions or information on police technology ( e.g .
automated license plate readers , biometric identification ) , prisoner rights , or public records laws .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Naomi Gilens and Dave Maass
This guide is an overview of digital security considerations specific to journalists covering protests. For EFF’s comprehensive guide to digital security, including advice for activists and protesters, visit ssd.eff.org. Legal advice in this post is specific to the United States.
As the international protests against police killings enter their third week, the public has been exposed to shocking videos of law enforcement wielding violence against not only demonstrators, but also the journalists who are tasked with documenting this historic moment.
EFF recently issued Surveillance Self-Defense tips for protesters who may find their digital rights under attack, either through mass surveillance of crowds or through the seizure of their devices. However, these tips don’t always reflect the reality of how journalists may need to do their jobs and the unique threats journalists face.
In this blog post, we attempt to address the digital security of news gatherers after speaking with reporters, photographers, and live streamers who are on the ground, risking everything to document these protests.
The Journalists’ Threat Model
When we talk about security planning or “threat modeling,” we mean assessing risk through a series of questions. What do you have that you need to protect? From what or whom do you need to protect it? What is the likelihood you will need to protect it? What are the consequences if you fail to protect it, and what are the trade-offs you’re willing to make in order to protect it?
With the threat model of a protester, we often pay special attention to the need to protect the anonymity and location of those who could face retaliation for exercising their rights to march and demonstrate or who may have their rights violated as police investigate the actions of others. This means that we often recommend protesters leave their devices at home, use a temporary device, or keep their devices in airplane mode.
A journalist, however, is generally more open about where they are and when, either through the credits on the photographs they publish or the bylines on the articles they write. And because many need to get out their stories rapidly or even in real time, going device-free or keeping devices in airplane mode may not be an acceptable option.
The journalist’s protest threat model is complex. First, they have to worry about the police. Law enforcement could seize their devices, which in turn could expose their sources and research in addition to their personal information, and could separate them from their work product for months. Journalists could also find that police may follow their digital footprint to investigate sources (as the Feds did when Sean Penn interviewed Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, despite Penn taking some security precautions). Journalists have also told us about experiences with thieves who use protests as cover, such as having laptops and other equipment stolen from their cars while they are in the field. Finally, journalists (especially photographers) also must remain aware that they may be confronted by protesters themselves, who may be trying to protect their images as part of their own threat models. (Again, it’s important to consider the likelihood of the threat: the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s research has found that the overwhelming number of attacks on journalists have been by police, not protesters.)
Protect Your Privacy with a Phone Shield Faraday Bag
Each of these threats may require taking different steps to secure your data. And, the steps needed will depend, too, on the form of your news gathering and the tools that you rely on in the field, whether that is taking photographs, conducting interviews, or live streaming video. To protect yourself and your data, you will need you to think carefully about the kind of journalism you’re doing (say advocacy journalism vs. traditional daily news reporting), the situation you’re joining, and the particular risks that you may face.
There is only one piece of advice that we believe holds for all journalists: think ahead and be deliberate. Consider the threats and make a decision about the risks and trade-offs. In doing so, here are some steps to consider.
Minimize your digital content at risk. Be prepared for the possibility that if you are arrested, police may confiscate your devices, and may keep them long after you are released to try to break into them. Minimize the amount of sensitive personal and professional information you carry in order to minimize the risk of exposure. If practicable, you may consider leaving personal devices at home and instead carrying a work or burner phone with minimal personal information on it. If that is not possible, consider minimizing the amount of sensitive information available by logging out of email, social media apps, and other apps containing data that you would not want the police or others to access.
Encrypt devices with a long passcode where possible. Police may try to break into your phone, and a long passcode is significantly more difficult to crack. Keep them and others out of your devices by protecting them with strong passcodes of 8-12 random characters that are easy for you to remember. Deactivate touch unlock and face ID on your devices. In the U.S., law currently provides stronger protection against police forcing you to enter a passcode than forcing you to biometrically unlock your device. Using a long passcode may be less convenient, but iOS and Android both allow you to take photos and video without unlocking your phone. See the “Take photos and videos without unlocking your device” section of our Attending a Protest SSD guide.
End-to-end encrypted messaging. By using end-to-end encrypted messaging, such as Signal (available for iOS and Android), you are making it far more difficult for law enforcement to obtain and read your communications, be it between you and your sources, your editorial team, or your personal contacts. You will want to make sure everyone on your newsgathering team has the same app installed and has each other’s contact information in advance of the protest. You may also find it useful to have several different encrypted messaging systems installed, since protesters and other sources may be using other apps. Many of these apps, including Signal, provide an option to have messages disappear anywhere from ten seconds to a week after they are first read, which will protect your communications if the police or others breach your phone.
Press passes. Many journalists won’t enter a volatile situation like a protest without having visible credentials provided by their news organization, a journalism association, or the local government. A press pass certainly can be useful in establishing your identity as a journalist. However, to obtain a government or police-issued press pass, it’s important to recognize a large trade-off: you may need to provide personal information or submit to a background check.
Hide your notifications. Consider turning off notifications, or, at minimum, restricting messaging apps from displaying the content of messages and message sender information. If your phone is seized or lost, you won’t have to worry about someone easily reading your private communications.
Back up your data before the protest. If your device is lost, stolen, or confiscated by police, you will be glad to have a backup of your information stored in a safe place.
Back up your data during the protest. If you are taking photos, video, or notes on a phone or other digital device during the protest, consider trying to back up your work in real time. This could include emailing important photos to yourself or setting up automated cloud storage while in the field. If your phone or camera is lost, stolen, or seized, you won’t lose your own coverage of what took place. But prepare for the possibility during the protest, the cell phone network may be oversaturated, unavailable, or slow.
Assume digital cameras are not encrypted. Few digital cameras provide the ability to encrypt. It is safe to assume that photos and videos taken with a digital camera will be stored unencrypted, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Use multiple memory cards. Some cameras provide the capability to store your photos simultaneously on two cards. Taking advantage of this capability may be obvious to many photographers, who know that a memory card can fail just when you need it most. However, there is also a digital security element: by cycling through memory cards regularly, you are ensuring that you will not lose all of your photographs if your camera itself is seized or damaged.
If you are detained by police, refuse to consent to a search of your devices. If police ask to see your phone, you have the right to refuse your consent and to refuse to give them your passcode. Note, however, that police may still seize it to try to break into and search it later.
For more resources on this issue, visit EFF’s Surveillance Self-Defense Guide, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Are you a journalist covering the protests? We would appreciate feedback and to hear about any other practices you’ve developed for protecting your digital privacy. Additionally, if you are in need of legal assistance in relation to your work reporting on the protests, we may be able to find you some help. Email us at info@eff.org.
Source: EFF.org
Naomi is an attorney specializing in free speech litigation. Prior to joining EFF, she worked on issues of free speech, privacy, and government transparency at the ACLU. Naomi graduated from Harvard Law School and Princeton University, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable David J. Barron of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the Honorable Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
As EFF’s senior investigative researcher, Dave Maass is a muckraker/noisemaker, covering issues related to police surveillance, free speech, transparency, and government accountability. In addition to leading deep-dive investigations, Dave coordinates large-scale public records campaigns, advocates on state legislation, and compiles The Foilies, EFF’s annual tongue-in-cheek awards for outrageous responses to FOIA requests. He sometimes represents EFF in digital rights-themed cosplay at Dragon Con, and he edited EFF’s first science fiction collection, Pwning Tomorrow. He also researches virtual reality as part of the team that developed Spot the Surveillance, EFF’s first VR experience. Contact him with questions or information on police technology (e.g. automated license plate readers, biometric identification), prisoner rights, or public records laws.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-10--The EARN IT Act Won’t Protect Children, But It Will Destroy Digital Privacy

With the world distracted by COVID-19 pandemic , the US government is taking the opportunity to continue its war on digital privacy .
The first public hearing of the EARN IT Act took place weeks ago , a bill which is nominally designed to require tech companies to meet certain “ best practice ” requirements when it comes to the safety of children online .
If they do so , and as the title of the bill indicates , they will be judged to have “ earned ” the right to be protected from lawsuits arising from user-generated content .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ aware of the act or its implications .
Even leaving aside the pandemic , a first glance at the bill would make it appear entirely reasonable .
Look a little deeper at the discussion draft of the bill , however , and you begin to see its true purpose : to make unbreakable encryption , and therefore data privacy , impossible .
That ’ s a bold claim , and also one that has been raised each time lawmakers attempt to intrude on digital privacy : some have claimed that consumers have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have pointed out that data privacy has been threatened many times before .
That might be true , but the EARN IT act is nonetheless an unprecedented piece of legislation , because it seeks to undermine a fundamental element of existing privacy rights law .
In order to understand why the EARN IT act is so problematic , it is worthwhile reminding ourselves how the right to free speech is protected online .
Back in 1996 , Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act spelled out the responsibilities of online platforms when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , in essence , that users are legally responsible for the content they upload , and not the platforms that they use to do this .
If you are defamed on Twitter , in other words , you can sue the user who defamed you , but you can ’ t sue Twitter for letting them do so .
Section 230 is regarded as the most important guarantee of free speech online , and the Electronic Frontier Foundation regards it as a fundamental part of the legal framework that guarantees digital privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this section allow tech companies to offer genuinely free forums for the discussion of contentious issues , but it also ensures that users are given protection from internet censorship .
At the moment , all online platforms are automatically afforded Section 230 protection .
The EARN IT act seeks to change that .
For those watching developments in the ongoing fight for digital privacy rights , this will come as little surprise .
Back in 2019 , senators threatened Facebook and Apple after their refusal to hand over unencrypted user data .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this information with the federal government , they were warned , then legislation would be passed that required them to build “ back doors ” into their systems that would allow this extraction .
The EARN IT bill is the latest attempt to do just that .
The bill is nominally focused on the protection of children online , and claims to provide a way for the government , under the auspices of a newly founded “ National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention ” , to prevent the online exploitation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no such thing .
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out , the bill “ doesn ’ t help organizations that support victims .
It doesn ’ t equip law enforcement agencies with resources to investigate claims of child exploitation or training in how to use online platforms to catch perpetrators .
Rather , the bill ’ s authors have shrewdly used defending children as the pretense for an attack on our free speech and security online.
” The critical and problematic part of the bill , when it comes to digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech platforms to adhere to a set of “ best practices ” in order to “ earn ” Section 230 protection from legislation .
While “ best practices ” sounds quite benign , in reality this would require tech companies to build backdoors into their encryption schemes .
If they do not , they are likely to be accused of not allowing “ lawful access ” to their systems and will have their Section 230 protection removed .
If the bill passes , tech companies will be confronted with a choice : weaken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the content uploaded by their users .
In practice , they will have to weaken encryption , because the flood of litigation stemming from user content will make running such platforms impossibly costly .
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the bill is that , where normally data privacy baffles lawmakers , this attack on data privacy is cleverly hidden in terms of “ child protection ” and “ best practices ” .
In fact , some lawmakers seem to be using their naivety when it comes to the technical aspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the Washington Post interviewed one of the bill ’ s sponsors , Sen. Richard Blumenthal , he claimed that he couldn ’ t protect users ’ rights to encryption because he doesn ’ t understand it .
“ I doubt I am the best qualified person to decide what best practices should be , ” he said .
“ Better-qualified people to make these decisions will be represented on the commission .
So , to ban or require one best practice or another [ beforehand ] I just think leads us down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , of course , not the only attack on digital privacy in the US , the UK , or Australia .
However , it does represent a more intelligent , nuanced , and fundamental approach to digital rights on the part of lawmakers .
By using the cover of child protection , and by going right back to rights enshrined in law in 1996 , EARN IT goes much further in undermining Section 230 than previous attempts at this .
It ’ s also worth noting that an attack on encryption could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are growing concerns that spyware in the IoT is being used by companies and governments alike to surveil citizens , and that the growing popularity of cloud computing is also a threat to privacy .
Even if one accepts the right of the federal government to access user data , they have an incredibly poor record in keeping these data safe .
Perhaps the most glaring issue with the EARN IT act , though , is that it will not even achieve what it sets out to : the protection of children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Internet and Society at Stanford Law School has found that the bill would actually make it harder to prosecute pedophiles because it removes the responsibility of tech companies to check their own content .
At the moment , both Facebook and Apple use advanced systems to scan uploaded content because they don ’ t want to be the subject of extremely negative headlines .
Passing the responsibility to monitor content to Congress is therefore a bad idea for at least five separate reasons .
First , tech companies will do the minimum possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because ( they will say ) this is the job of Congress .
Second , lawmakers will be charged with monitoring tech platforms , and a less well-qualified body for this task is hard to conceive of .
Third , the bill will essentially make effective encryption impossible , exposing the data of users , companies , journalists , human rights activists , and everyone else to theft .
Fourth , the bill will not achieve what it claims to .
Oh , and fifth : it will fundamentally undermine the constitutional right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are just the beginning of the potential issues the bill will cause .
Legal scholars are already pointing out that , if EARN IT passes , it will have knock-on effects across other areas of law , including the security of the intellectual property rights that our economy ( and society ) is based on .
The crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will , of course , continue to dominate the headlines for months yet .
However , we should recognize that this crisis is also being used to further undermine our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow the government to escape scrutiny under the auspices of dealing with an emergency .

By Sia Mohajer
With the world distracted by COVID-19 pandemic, the US government is taking the opportunity to continue its war on digital privacy. The first public hearing of the EARN IT Act took place weeks ago, a bill which is nominally designed to require tech companies to meet certain “best practice” requirements when it comes to the safety of children online. If they do so, and as the title of the bill indicates, they will be judged to have “earned” the right to be protected from lawsuits arising from user-generated content.
You may be forgiven for not being aware of the act or its implications. Even leaving aside the pandemic, a first glance at the bill would make it appear entirely reasonable. Look a little deeper at the discussion draft of the bill, however, and you begin to see its true purpose: to make unbreakable encryption, and therefore data privacy, impossible.
That’s a bold claim, and also one that has been raised each time lawmakers attempt to intrude on digital privacy: some have claimed that consumers have already lost the online privacy war, or have pointed out that data privacy has been threatened many times before. That might be true, but the EARN IT act is nonetheless an unprecedented piece of legislation, because it seeks to undermine a fundamental element of existing privacy rights law.
In order to understand why the EARN IT act is so problematic, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves how the right to free speech is protected online. Back in 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act spelled out the responsibilities of online platforms when it came to user-generated content. Section 230 says, in essence, that users are legally responsible for the content they upload, and not the platforms that they use to do this. If you are defamed on Twitter, in other words, you can sue the user who defamed you, but you can’t sue Twitter for letting them do so.
Section 230 is regarded as the most important guarantee of free speech online, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation regards it as a fundamental part of the legal framework that guarantees digital privacy in the US. Not only does this section allow tech companies to offer genuinely free forums for the discussion of contentious issues, but it also ensures that users are given protection from internet censorship. At the moment, all online platforms are automatically afforded Section 230 protection. The EARN IT act seeks to change that.
For those watching developments in the ongoing fight for digital privacy rights, this will come as little surprise. Back in 2019, senators threatened Facebook and Apple after their refusal to hand over unencrypted user data. If tech firms were not willing to share this information with the federal government, they were warned, then legislation would be passed that required them to build “back doors” into their systems that would allow this extraction.
The EARN IT bill is the latest attempt to do just that. The bill is nominally focused on the protection of children online, and claims to provide a way for the government, under the auspices of a newly founded “National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention”, to prevent the online exploitation of children.
Unfortunately, the bill does no such thing. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out, the bill “doesn’t help organizations that support victims. It doesn’t equip law enforcement agencies with resources to investigate claims of child exploitation or training in how to use online platforms to catch perpetrators. Rather, the bill’s authors have shrewdly used defending children as the pretense for an attack on our free speech and security online.”
The critical and problematic part of the bill, when it comes to digital privacy, is that it will require tech platforms to adhere to a set of “best practices” in order to “earn” Section 230 protection from legislation. While “best practices” sounds quite benign, in reality this would require tech companies to build backdoors into their encryption schemes. If they do not, they are likely to be accused of not allowing “lawful access” to their systems and will have their Section 230 protection removed.
If the bill passes, tech companies will be confronted with a choice: weaken their encryption schemes, or face lawsuits based on the content uploaded by their users. In practice, they will have to weaken encryption, because the flood of litigation stemming from user content will make running such platforms impossibly costly.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the bill is that, where normally data privacy baffles lawmakers, this attack on data privacy is cleverly hidden in terms of “child protection” and “best practices”. In fact, some lawmakers seem to be using their naivety when it comes to the technical aspects of online privacy to deflect criticism. When the Washington Post interviewed one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, he claimed that he couldn’t protect users’ rights to encryption because he doesn’t understand it.
“I doubt I am the best qualified person to decide what best practices should be,” he said. “Better-qualified people to make these decisions will be represented on the commission. So, to ban or require one best practice or another [beforehand] I just think leads us down a very perilous road.”
The bill is, of course, not the only attack on digital privacy in the US, the UK, or Australia. However, it does represent a more intelligent, nuanced, and fundamental approach to digital rights on the part of lawmakers. By using the cover of child protection, and by going right back to rights enshrined in law in 1996, EARN IT goes much further in undermining Section 230 than previous attempts at this.
It’s also worth noting that an attack on encryption could not come at a worse time. There are growing concerns that spyware in the IoT is being used by companies and governments alike to surveil citizens, and that the growing popularity of cloud computing is also a threat to privacy. Even if one accepts the right of the federal government to access user data, they have an incredibly poor record in keeping these data safe.
Perhaps the most glaring issue with the EARN IT act, though, is that it will not even achieve what it sets out to: the protection of children online. Analysis by the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School has found that the bill would actually make it harder to prosecute pedophiles because it removes the responsibility of tech companies to check their own content.
At the moment, both Facebook and Apple use advanced systems to scan uploaded content because they don’t want to be the subject of extremely negative headlines.
Passing the responsibility to monitor content to Congress is therefore a bad idea for at least five separate reasons. First, tech companies will do the minimum possible to detect and remove abusive material, because (they will say) this is the job of Congress.
Second, lawmakers will be charged with monitoring tech platforms, and a less well-qualified body for this task is hard to conceive of. Third, the bill will essentially make effective encryption impossible, exposing the data of users, companies, journalists, human rights activists, and everyone else to theft.
Fourth, the bill will not achieve what it claims to. Oh, and fifth: it will fundamentally undermine the constitutional right to a private life.
And these are just the beginning of the potential issues the bill will cause. Legal scholars are already pointing out that, if EARN IT passes, it will have knock-on effects across other areas of law, including the security of the intellectual property rights that our economy (and society) is based on.
The crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will, of course, continue to dominate the headlines for months yet. However, we should recognize that this crisis is also being used to further undermine our right to online privacy, and not allow the government to escape scrutiny under the auspices of dealing with an emergency.


activistpost--2020-06-09--Study: “Smart” Meters Reduce Energy Use Around 2% – Not Environmentally Meaningful as Promised

Since tens of millions of 2-way wireless transmitting utility “ Smart ” Meters have been installed on homes and throughout communities in the U.S. and worldwide – you probably have them even if your utility company doesn ’ t call them “ Smart ” .
They are so unpopular ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) and problematic and EXPENSIVE ( see 1 , 2 ) that a documentary was produced about them in 2013 and then updated and re-released in 2017 .
Most of the costs for their installation AND their replacements have been and continue to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental groups ( see 1 , 2 ) – promised they would help customers reduce their energy use .
OMG No !
In fact , because they are 2-way transmitting , they actually use more energy to operate than original 1-way transmitting meters and that additional use is at least sometimes being passed on to customers ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Thanks to TechExplore for publishing another study about Smart Meters failing to live up to their hype : When the Smart Meter Rollout Programme launched a decade ago , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumers cut down on their energy usage , but new research has found that environmental concerns have little impact on reducing energy consumption .
Smart meters were introduced to allow customers to manage their energy use and it was hoped they would save money on bills and lessen their environmental impact by reducing energy demand , as well as changing their attitudes towards their energy use .
But new research by Keele University using focus groups has found that 10 years after the programme was rolled out , people ’ s awareness around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still only limited .
The findings also showed that environmental concerns are not a key driver in promoting energy reduction behaviours , not because participants don ’ t care about the environment but because they felt a reduction in their energy consumption would have very little impact on the environment .
These findings are in line with recent estimates which suggest that reductions in energy usage are only at around 2 % since the start of the rollout , and far lower than the meaningful energy reductions which were hoped for .
Fires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appliances are also associated with these meters ( see 1 , 2 .
3 .
4 ) .
They also emit Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “ Electrosmog ” ) which can make people , plants and animals sick ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Utility companies and their cronies continue to promote them and force their installation because “ Smart ” Meters collect customer usage data 24/7 , whereas original analog meters DO NOT .
Utilities use that data to try to market more products and services to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s all very yucky .
Activist Post reports regularly about “ Smart ” Meters and other unsafe technology .
For more information , visit our archives and the following websites : Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of @ @ @ @

By B.N. Frank
Since tens of millions of 2-way wireless transmitting utility “Smart” Meters have been installed on homes and throughout communities in the U.S. and worldwide – you probably have them even if your utility company doesn’t call them “Smart”.
They are so unpopular (see 1, 2, 3) and problematic and EXPENSIVE (see 1, 2) that a documentary was produced about them in 2013 and then updated and re-released in 2017. Most of the costs for their installation AND their replacements have been and continue to be passed onto customers.
Proponents – including environmental groups (see 1, 2) – promised they would help customers reduce their energy use. OMG No! In fact, because they are 2-way transmitting, they actually use more energy to operate than original 1-way transmitting meters and that additional use is at least sometimes being passed on to customers (see 1, 2).
Thanks to TechExplore for publishing another study about Smart Meters failing to live up to their hype:
When the Smart Meter Rollout Programme launched a decade ago, it was touted as a way of helping consumers cut down on their energy usage, but new research has found that environmental concerns have little impact on reducing energy consumption. Smart meters were introduced to allow customers to manage their energy use and it was hoped they would save money on bills and lessen their environmental impact by reducing energy demand, as well as changing their attitudes towards their energy use. But new research by Keele University using focus groups has found that 10 years after the programme was rolled out, people’s awareness around strategies for improving our energy efficiency is still only limited. The findings also showed that environmental concerns are not a key driver in promoting energy reduction behaviours, not because participants don’t care about the environment but because they felt a reduction in their energy consumption would have very little impact on the environment. These findings are in line with recent estimates which suggest that reductions in energy usage are only at around 2% since the start of the rollout, and far lower than the meaningful energy reductions which were hoped for. Read full article
Fires, explosions, and malfunctioning and breaking appliances are also associated with these meters (see 1, 2. 3. 4). They also emit Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) which can make people, plants and animals sick (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
Utility companies and their cronies continue to promote them and force their installation because “Smart” Meters collect customer usage data 24/7, whereas original analog meters DO NOT. Utilities use that data to try to market more products and services to customers and/or sell it to 3rd parties. It’s all very yucky.
Activist Post reports regularly about “Smart” Meters and other unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-11--IBM, Amazon Agree to Step Back From Face Recognition. Where Is Microsoft?

Activism is working .
Both on the streets as people protest to end racist and violent policing , and among civil liberties organizations who have been fighting the government ’ s use of harmful face surveillance technology .
This week two major vendors of face surveillance technology announced that in light of recent protests against police brutality and racial injustice , they would be phasing out or pausing their sale of this technology to police .
The fact that these two companies , IBM and Amazon , have admitted the harm that this technology causes should be a red flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other government use of this technology can be responsibly regulated is wrong .
Congress , states , and cities should take this momentary reprieve , during which police will not be able to acquire face surveillance technology from two major companies , as an opportunity to ban government use of the technology once and for all .
In a letter from Arvind Krishna to Congress , the IBM CEO announced that in the name of racial justice the company would end research , development , and sale of any face recognition technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In March 2019 , IBM was criticized by photographers after it released a new dataset of diverse images , scraped from social media platform Flickr , in hopes of training face recognition programs to be less flawed when recognizing people of color .
Now the company recognizes that better training data is not an effective solution to the many problems of this menacing technology .
Amazon in turn announced a 1-year moratorium on police use of its face surveillance technology , Rekognition .
This company also cited recent protests as the impetus of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to already over-policed communities .
Unfortunately , Amazon still clings to the discredited notion that police can safely deploy face surveillance technology if only there are enough rules .
“ We ’ ve advocated , ” the company posted , “ that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology , and in recent days , Congress appears ready to take on this challenge .
We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules , and we stand ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rekognition program has been particularly flawed and harmful .
In 2018 , the ACLU ran faces of sitting U.S. congress members through the program .
Twenty-eight members of congress were incorrectly identified as people who had been arrested for committing crimes .
That same year EFF joined with ACLU and a coalition of civil liberties organizations to demand that Amazon stop powering government surveillance infrastructure with its flawed and invasive Rekognition program .
While we welcome Amazon ’ s half-step , we urge the company to finish the job .
Like IBM , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this dangerous technology to police departments .
Microsoft is another one of the largest vendors of police-used face surveillance .
It must now follow suit and end government use of its facial recognition program .
Microsoft has expressed concerns over harms police use of face recognition can cause .
In 2019 , Microsoft stated that it had denied one California law enforcement agency use of its face recognition technology on body-worn cameras and car cameras , due to human rights concerns .
The logical next step is clear : Microsoft should end the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be a nation-wide ban on government use of face surveillance .
Even if the technology were highly regulated , its use by the government would continue to exacerbate a policing crisis in this nation that disproportionately harms Black Americans , immigrants , the unhoused , and other vulnerable populations .
We agree that the government should act , and are glad that Amazon is giving them a year to do so , but the outcome must be an end to government use of this technology .
The movement to ban face recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the past two weeks show that the public will not sit idly by while tech companies enable and profit off of a system of surveillance and policing that hurts so many .
Face recognition isn ’ t the only problematic tool tech companies offer to police .
Though Amazon has pressed pause on offering Rekognition to police , Amazon-owned Ring , the “ smart doorbell ” and camera company , still partners with over 1300 police departments .
These partnerships allow police to make batch-requests for footage via email to every resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest to police—potentially giving police a one-step process for requesting footage of protests to identify protestors .
These partnerships intensify suspicion , help police racially profile people , and enable and perpetuate police harassment of Black Americans .
Join us in calling on Amazon to continue its thoughtful action in light of nationwide activism , admit the dangers of Ring-police partnerships , and immediately halt them Matthew Guariglia is a policy analyst working on issues of surveillance and privacy at the local , state , and federal level .
He received a PhD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where his research focused on the intersection of race , immigration , U.S. imperialism , and policing in New York City .
He is a frequent contributor to the Freedom of Information-centered outlet Muckrock and his bylines have also appeared in the Washington Post , Slate , and Motherboard .
Matthew is a visiting scholar in the department of history at UC-Berkeley and serves as an editor of “ Disciplining the City , ” a series on the history of urban policing and incarceration at the Urban History Association ’ s blog The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matthew Guariglia
Activism is working. Both on the streets as people protest to end racist and violent policing, and among civil liberties organizations who have been fighting the government’s use of harmful face surveillance technology. This week two major vendors of face surveillance technology announced that in light of recent protests against police brutality and racial injustice, they would be phasing out or pausing their sale of this technology to police.
The fact that these two companies, IBM and Amazon, have admitted the harm that this technology causes should be a red flag to lawmakers. The belief that police and other government use of this technology can be responsibly regulated is wrong. Congress, states, and cities should take this momentary reprieve, during which police will not be able to acquire face surveillance technology from two major companies, as an opportunity to ban government use of the technology once and for all.
In a letter from Arvind Krishna to Congress, the IBM CEO announced that in the name of racial justice the company would end research, development, and sale of any face recognition technology:
IBM firmly opposes and will not condone uses of any technology, including facial recognition technology offered by other vendors, for mass surveillance, racial profiling, violations of basic human rights and freedoms, or any purpose which is not consistent with our values and Principles of Trust and Transparency. We believe now is the time to begin a national dialogue on whether and how facial recognition technology should be employed by domestic law enforcement agencies.
This is a big pivot. In March 2019, IBM was criticized by photographers after it released a new dataset of diverse images, scraped from social media platform Flickr, in hopes of training face recognition programs to be less flawed when recognizing people of color. Now the company recognizes that better training data is not an effective solution to the many problems of this menacing technology.
Amazon in turn announced a 1-year moratorium on police use of its face surveillance technology, Rekognition. This company also cited recent protests as the impetus of re-examining the harm this technology can do to already over-policed communities. Unfortunately, Amazon still clings to the discredited notion that police can safely deploy face surveillance technology if only there are enough rules. “We’ve advocated,” the company posted, “that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and in recent days, Congress appears ready to take on this challenge. We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested.”
Activist Post Recommended Book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
Amazon’s Rekognition program has been particularly flawed and harmful. In 2018, the ACLU ran faces of sitting U.S. congress members through the program. Twenty-eight members of congress were incorrectly identified as people who had been arrested for committing crimes. That same year EFF joined with ACLU and a coalition of civil liberties organizations to demand that Amazon stop powering government surveillance infrastructure with its flawed and invasive Rekognition program.
While we welcome Amazon’s half-step, we urge the company to finish the job. Like IBM, Amazon must permanently end its sale of this dangerous technology to police departments.
Microsoft is another one of the largest vendors of police-used face surveillance. It must now follow suit and end government use of its facial recognition program. Microsoft has expressed concerns over harms police use of face recognition can cause. In 2019, Microsoft stated that it had denied one California law enforcement agency use of its face recognition technology on body-worn cameras and car cameras, due to human rights concerns. The logical next step is clear: Microsoft should end the program once and for all.
There should be a nation-wide ban on government use of face surveillance. Even if the technology were highly regulated, its use by the government would continue to exacerbate a policing crisis in this nation that disproportionately harms Black Americans, immigrants, the unhoused, and other vulnerable populations. We agree that the government should act, and are glad that Amazon is giving them a year to do so, but the outcome must be an end to government use of this technology.
The movement to ban face recognition is gaining momentum. The historic demonstrations of the past two weeks show that the public will not sit idly by while tech companies enable and profit off of a system of surveillance and policing that hurts so many.
Face recognition isn’t the only problematic tool tech companies offer to police. Though Amazon has pressed pause on offering Rekognition to police, Amazon-owned Ring, the “smart doorbell” and camera company, still partners with over 1300 police departments. These partnerships allow police to make batch-requests for footage via email to every resident with a camera within an area of interest to police—potentially giving police a one-step process for requesting footage of protests to identify protestors. These partnerships intensify suspicion, help police racially profile people, and enable and perpetuate police harassment of Black Americans.
Join us in calling on Amazon to continue its thoughtful action in light of nationwide activism, admit the dangers of Ring-police partnerships, and immediately halt them
TELL AMAZON RING: END POLICE PARTNERSHIPS
Source: EFF.org
Matthew Guariglia is a policy analyst working on issues of surveillance and privacy at the local, state, and federal level. He received a PhD in history at the University of Connecticut where his research focused on the intersection of race, immigration, U.S. imperialism, and policing in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to the Freedom of Information-centered outlet Muckrock and his bylines have also appeared in the Washington Post, Slate, and Motherboard. Matthew is a visiting scholar in the department of history at UC-Berkeley and serves as an editor of “Disciplining the City,” a series on the history of urban policing and incarceration at the Urban History Association’s blog The Metropole. (Photo by Zack Garlitos)
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-11--Creepy Proposal: Government’s Plans to “Track” COVID-19 at Schools

Parents who are chomping at the bit to get the schools reopened in the fall are in for a big surprise .
If they do want their child to go back to a public school , it will , first of all , look more like a prison than it did before .
The government wants beacons on every child so they can be tracked at all times — to prevent COVID-19 , of course .
When it comes to being overly disturbing , the government has proven it knows no bounds .
After all of the evidence the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told us , nor are asymptomatic carriers likely to spread it , they still want to track and monitor and control every tiny aspect of even a child ’ s life .
When students return to school in New Albany , Ohio , in August , they ’ ll be carefully watched as they wander through red-brick buildings and across well-kept lawns—and not only by teachers .
The school district , with five schools and 4,800 students , plans to test a system that would require each student to wear an electronic beacon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few feet throughout the day .
It will record where students sit in each classroom , show who they meet and talk to , and reveal how they gather in groups .
The hope is such technology could prevent or minimize an outbreak of Covid-19 , the deadly respiratory disease at the center of a global pandemic .
Many plan to proceed gradually and carefully while keeping kids spread out as much as possible .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s guidelines for reopening schools recommend staggered schedules that allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide more air circulation , avoiding sharing books and computers , regular cleaning of buses and classes , and requiring masks and handwashing .
Many see some form of distance learning continuing through next year .
–Wired Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Before this horrific announcement about how they intend to treat our children , many parents had already said there ’ s no way they will send their child back to a government school .
In fact , 40 % of parents intend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one survey that was conducted about a month ago .
Some parents fear another coronavirus outbreak , but some have found out that is isn ’ t so bad to actually teach your children morals and ethics instead of how to blindly obey orders .
Homeschooling is a big problem for governments , as children who are educated at home often come to the conclusion that the state is an unnecessary impedance on human life and intolerable .
Homeschooling has been on the rise already and this could be a huge problem for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that they don ’ t need the state to indoctrinate their children .
Homeschooling Expands As Parents Seethe Over Liberal Social Engineering And Violence If you thought schools were becoming indoctrination camps and resembled prisons more and more , you aren ’ t the only one .
Parents have noticed and many are opting out of the system .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Mac Slavo
Parents who are chomping at the bit to get the schools reopened in the fall are in for a big surprise. If they do want their child to go back to a public school, it will, first of all, look more like a prison than it did before. The government wants beacons on every child so they can be tracked at all times — to prevent COVID-19, of course.
When it comes to being overly disturbing, the government has proven it knows no bounds. After all of the evidence the coronavirus is not nearly as deadly as they told us, nor are asymptomatic carriers likely to spread it, they still want to track and monitor and control every tiny aspect of even a child’s life.
When students return to school in New Albany, Ohio, in August, they’ll be carefully watched as they wander through red-brick buildings and across well-kept lawns—and not only by teachers. The school district, with five schools and 4,800 students, plans to test a system that would require each student to wear an electronic beacon to track their location to within a few feet throughout the day. It will record where students sit in each classroom, show who they meet and talk to, and reveal how they gather in groups. The hope is such technology could prevent or minimize an outbreak of Covid-19, the deadly respiratory disease at the center of a global pandemic. Many plan to proceed gradually and carefully while keeping kids spread out as much as possible. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines for reopening schools recommend staggered schedules that allow for smaller classes, opening windows to provide more air circulation, avoiding sharing books and computers, regular cleaning of buses and classes, and requiring masks and handwashing. Many see some form of distance learning continuing through next year. –Wired
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Before this horrific announcement about how they intend to treat our children, many parents had already said there’s no way they will send their child back to a government school. In fact, 40% of parents intend to homeschool their children next year according to one survey that was conducted about a month ago. Some parents fear another coronavirus outbreak, but some have found out that is isn’t so bad to actually teach your children morals and ethics instead of how to blindly obey orders.
Homeschooling is a big problem for governments, as children who are educated at home often come to the conclusion that the state is an unnecessary impedance on human life and intolerable. Homeschooling has been on the rise already and this could be a huge problem for all public schools. People are figuring out that they don’t need the state to educate indoctrinate their children.
Homeschooling Expands As Parents Seethe Over Liberal Social Engineering And Violence
If you thought schools were becoming indoctrination camps and resembled prisons more and more, you aren’t the only one. Parents have noticed and many are opting out of the system.
Source: SHTFPlan.com
Image: Pixabay
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-11--“This Thing Is Actually Real” – US Army Accidentally Reveals New Hypersonic Missile

A new hypersonic weapon could be in development after plans , or at least the outline of the program , “ emerged inadvertently ” on social media last week managed by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy that describes a Mach 5-plus missile with capabilities to penetrate the world ’ s most advanced missile defense shields , reported Aviation Week .
The photo is from the Association of the United States Army conference last fall , and was uploaded to McCarthy ’ s Flickr page last week — shows the military official holding a weapons briefing slide that reads : “ Vintage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Overview.
” The slide is laying down on a table and nearly impossible to understand .
Still , six bullet points state : “ Hypersonic ingress , ” “ Survivable , ” “ Time Over Target , ” “ Multi-role , ” “ Modular Payload , ” and “ Cost Imposition Strategy.
” Near McCarthy ’ s right hand , the bottom line reads , “ Long Range , Rapid Ingress.
” Aviation Week said there was a reference to the Vintage Racer program in Defense Department budget justification documents but went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ item owned by the Office of Secretary of Defense for a “ quick reaction fund , ” Vintage Racer is described as a “ recent success story.
” The project successfully validated aerodynamic design with wind tunnel testing and integrated a guidance subsystem for targeted kinetic effects before culminating in a fiscal 2019 flight test .
Documentation and prototype technologies transitioned to the U.S. Army for additional development and follow-on acquisition activities , ” according to budget documents .
Dmitry Stefanovitch , an expert at the Moscow-based Russian International Affairs Council , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target ICBM launchers deep behind enemy lines .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Aviation Week ‘ s Steve Trumble tweeted : “ successfully and transitioned to the Army for follow-on development .
This thing is actually real , not just a briefing slide !
” Here are the latest US hypersonic developments : • Pentagon Reviewing Hypersonic Program As Investments In Mach 5 Missiles Expected To Soar As we ’ ve noted on several occasions , the superpower that dominates hypersonic weapons and fifth-generation fighter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be victorious in the next global military conflict .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
A new hypersonic weapon could be in development after plans, or at least the outline of the program, “emerged inadvertently” on social media last week managed by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy that describes a Mach 5-plus missile with capabilities to penetrate the world’s most advanced missile defense shields, reported Aviation Week.
The photo is from the Association of the United States Army conference last fall, and was uploaded to McCarthy’s Flickr page last week — shows the military official holding a weapons briefing slide that reads: “Vintage Racer — Loitering Weapon System (LWS) Overview.”
The slide is laying down on a table and nearly impossible to understand. Still, six bullet points state: “Hypersonic ingress,” “Survivable,” “Time Over Target,” “Multi-role,” “Modular Payload,” and “Cost Imposition Strategy.”
Near McCarthy’s right hand, the bottom line reads, “Long Range, Rapid Ingress.”
Aviation Week said there was a reference to the Vintage Racer program in Defense Department budget justification documents but went unnoticed by many:
Under a line item owned by the Office of Secretary of Defense for a “quick reaction fund,” Vintage Racer is described as a “recent success story.” The project successfully validated aerodynamic design with wind tunnel testing and integrated a guidance subsystem for targeted kinetic effects before culminating in a fiscal 2019 flight test. Documentation and prototype technologies transitioned to the U.S. Army for additional development and follow-on acquisition activities,” according to budget documents.
Dmitry Stefanovitch, an expert at the Moscow-based Russian International Affairs Council, said the new weapon could be designed to target ICBM launchers deep behind enemy lines.
The fear is that [this] hypersonic ‘something’ might reach the patrol area of road-mobile ICBM launchers [after] penetrating any possible air and missile defense, and then dispense loitering submunitions that will find launchers in the forests,” said Stefanovitch.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Aviation Week‘s Steve Trumble tweeted: “ OMG, Vintage Racer has been flight-tested successfully and transitioned to the Army for follow-on development. This thing is actually real, not just a briefing slide!”
Here are the latest US hypersonic developments:
As we’ve noted on several occasions, the superpower that dominates hypersonic weapons and fifth-generation fighter jet technology – combine the both – will be victorious in the next global military conflict.
Source: ZeroHedge
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-11--Amazon Ring Must End Its Dangerous Partnerships With Police

Across the United States , people are taking to the street to protest racist police violence , including the tragic police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor .
This is a historic moment of reckoning for law enforcement .
Technology companies , too , must rethink how the tools they design and sell to police departments minimize accountability and exacerbate injustice .
Even worse , some companies profit directly from exploiting irrational fears of crime that all too often feed the flames of police brutality .
So we ’ re calling on Amazon Ring , one of the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it holds with over 1300 law enforcement agencies .
One by one , companies that profit off fears of crime have released statements voicing solidarity with those communities that are disproportionately impacted by police violence .
Amazon , which owns Ring , announced that they “ stand in solidarity with the Black community— [ their ] employees , customers , and partners — in the fight against systemic racism and injustice.
” And yet , Amazon and other companies offer a high-speed digital mechanism by which people can make snap judgements about who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belong in their neighborhood , and summon police to confront them .
This mechanism also facilitates police access to video and audio footage from massive numbers of doorbell cameras aimed at the public way across the country—a feature that could conceivably be used to identify participants in a protest through a neighborhood .
Amazon built this surveillance infrastructure through tight-knit partnerships with police departments , including officers hawking Ring ’ s cameras to residents , and Ring telling officers how to better pressure residents to share their videos .
Despite Amazon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment of Black people in our country must stop , ” Ring plays an active role in enabling and perpetuating police harassment of Black Americans .
Ring ’ s surveillance doorbells and its accompanying Neighbors app have inflamed many residents ’ worst instincts and urged them to spy on pedestrians , neighbors , and workers .
We must tell Amazon Ring to end their police partnerships today .
We ’ ve written extensively about why Ring is a “ Perfect Storm of Privacy Threats , ” and we ’ ve laid out five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also revealed a number of previously-undisclosed trackers sending information from the Ring app to third parties , and critiqued the lackluster changes made in response to security flaws .
To start , Ring sends notifications to a person ’ s phone every time the doorbell rings or motion near the door is detected .
With every notification , Ring turns the pizza delivery person or census-taker innocently standing at the door into a potential criminal .
And with the click of a button , Ring allows a user to post video taken from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilitating the reporting of so-called “ suspicious ” behavior .
This encourages racial profiling—take , for example , an African-American real estate agent who was stopped by police because neighbors thought it was “ suspicious ” for him to ring a doorbell .
Ring Could Be Used to Identify Protesters To make matters worse , Ring continuing to grow partnerships with police departments during the current protests make an arrangement already at risk of enabling racial profiling even more troubling and dangerous .
Ring now has relationships with over 1300 police departments around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police to have a general idea of the location of every Ring camera in town , and to make batch-requests for footage via email to every resident with a camera within an area of interest to police—potentially giving police a one-step process for requesting footage of protests to identify protestors .
In some towns , the local government has even offered tiered discount rates for the camera based on how much of the public area on a street the Ring will regularly capture .
The more of the public space it captures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ring camera captures demonstrations , the owner is at risk of making protestors identifiable to police and vulnerable to retribution .
Even if the camera owner refuses to voluntarily share footage of a protest with police , law enforcement can go straight to Amazon with a warrant and thereby circumvent the camera ’ s owner .
The rapid proliferation of these partnerships between police departments and the Ring surveillance system—without oversight , transparency , or restrictions—poses a grave threat to the privacy and safety of all people in the community .
“ Fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company blog in 2016 .
Fear also gets people hurt , by inflaming tensions and creating suspicion where none rationally exists .
Consider that Amazon also encourages police to tell residents to install the Ring app and purchase cameras for their homes , in an arrangement that makes salespeople out of what should be impartial and trusted protectors of our civic society .
Per Motherboard , for every town resident that downloads Ring ’ s Neighbors app , the local police department gets credits toward buying cameras it can distribute to residents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : it ’ s unsafe and diminishes public trust .
Some of the “ features ” Ring has been considering adding would considerably increase the danger it poses .
Integrated face recognition software would enable the worst type of privacy invasion of individuals , and potentially force every person approaching a Ring doorbell to have their face scanned and cross-checked against a database of other faces without their consent .
License plate scanning could match people ’ s faces to their cars .
Alerting users to local 911 calls as part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app , Neighbors , would instill even more fear , and probably sell additional Ring services .
Just today Amazon announced a one-year moratorium on police use of its dangerous “ Rekognition ” facial recognition tool .
This follows an announcement from IBM that it will no longer develop or research face recognition technology , in part because of its use in mass surveillance , policing , and racial profiling .
We ’ re glad Amazon has admitted that the unregulated use of face recognition can do harm to vulnerable communities .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admit the dangers of Ring-police partnerships , and stand behind its statement on police brutality .
Jason Kelley is a Digital Strategist on EFF ’ s Activism Team .
Before joining EFF , Jason managed marketing strategy and content for a software company that helps non-programmers learn to code , and advertising and marketing analytics for a student loan startup .
Jason received his BA in English and Philosophy from Kent State University and an M.F.A .
in creative writing from The University of the South .
He tries daily to apply advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspiration for Robin Williams ’ character in Dead Poets Society : “ Take out the extra words .
Make it go quicker.
” Matthew Guariglia is a policy analyst working on issues of surveillance and privacy at the local , state , and federal level .
He received a PhD in history at the University of Connecticut where his research focused on the intersection of race , immigration , U.S. imperialism , and policing in New York City .
He is a frequent contributor to the Freedom of Information-centered outlet Muckrock and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post , Slate , and Motherboard .
Matthew is a visiting scholar in the department of history at UC-Berkeley and serves as an editor of “ Disciplining the City , ” a series on the history of urban policing and incarceration at the Urban History Association ’ s blog The Metropole .
( Photo by Zack Garlitos ) Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Jason Kelley and Matthew Guariglia
Across the United States, people are taking to the street to protest racist police violence, including the tragic police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. This is a historic moment of reckoning for law enforcement. Technology companies, too, must rethink how the tools they design and sell to police departments minimize accountability and exacerbate injustice. Even worse, some companies profit directly from exploiting irrational fears of crime that all too often feed the flames of police brutality.
So we’re calling on Amazon Ring, one of the worst offenders, to immediately end the partnerships it holds with over 1300 law enforcement agencies.
TELL AMAZON RING: END POLICE PARTNERSHIPS
One by one, companies that profit off fears of crime have released statements voicing solidarity with those communities that are disproportionately impacted by police violence. Amazon, which owns Ring, announced that they “stand in solidarity with the Black community—[their] employees, customers, and partners — in the fight against systemic racism and injustice.”
Activist Post Recommended Book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
And yet, Amazon and other companies offer a high-speed digital mechanism by which people can make snap judgements about who does, and who does not, belong in their neighborhood, and summon police to confront them. This mechanism also facilitates police access to video and audio footage from massive numbers of doorbell cameras aimed at the public way across the country—a feature that could conceivably be used to identify participants in a protest through a neighborhood. Amazon built this surveillance infrastructure through tight-knit partnerships with police departments, including officers hawking Ring’s cameras to residents, and Ring telling officers how to better pressure residents to share their videos.
Despite Amazon’s statement that “the inequitable and brutal treatment of Black people in our country must stop,” Ring plays an active role in enabling and perpetuating police harassment of Black Americans. Ring’s surveillance doorbells and its accompanying Neighbors app have inflamed many residents’ worst instincts and urged them to spy on pedestrians, neighbors, and workers. We must tell Amazon Ring to end their police partnerships today.
Ring Threatens Privacy and Communities
We’ve written extensively about why Ring is a “Perfect Storm of Privacy Threats,” and we’ve laid out five specific problems with Ring-police partnerships. We also revealed a number of previously-undisclosed trackers sending information from the Ring app to third parties, and critiqued the lackluster changes made in response to security flaws.
To start, Ring sends notifications to a person’s phone every time the doorbell rings or motion near the door is detected. With every notification, Ring turns the pizza delivery person or census-taker innocently standing at the door into a potential criminal. And with the click of a button, Ring allows a user to post video taken from that camera directly to their community, facilitating the reporting of so-called “suspicious” behavior. This encourages racial profiling—take, for example, an African-American real estate agent who was stopped by police because neighbors thought it was “suspicious” for him to ring a doorbell.
Ring Could Be Used to Identify Protesters
To make matters worse, Ring continuing to grow partnerships with police departments during the current protests make an arrangement already at risk of enabling racial profiling even more troubling and dangerous. Ring now has relationships with over 1300 police departments around the United States. These partnerships allow police to have a general idea of the location of every Ring camera in town, and to make batch-requests for footage via email to every resident with a camera within an area of interest to police—potentially giving police a one-step process for requesting footage of protests to identify protestors. In some towns, the local government has even offered tiered discount rates for the camera based on how much of the public area on a street the Ring will regularly capture. The more of the public space it captures, the larger the discount.
If a Ring camera captures demonstrations, the owner is at risk of making protestors identifiable to police and vulnerable to retribution. Even if the camera owner refuses to voluntarily share footage of a protest with police, law enforcement can go straight to Amazon with a warrant and thereby circumvent the camera’s owner.
Ring Undermines Public Trust In Police
The rapid proliferation of these partnerships between police departments and the Ring surveillance system—without oversight, transparency, or restrictions—poses a grave threat to the privacy and safety of all people in the community. “Fear sells,” Ring posted on their company blog in 2016. Fear also gets people hurt, by inflaming tensions and creating suspicion where none rationally exists.
Consider that Amazon also encourages police to tell residents to install the Ring app and purchase cameras for their homes, in an arrangement that makes salespeople out of what should be impartial and trusted protectors of our civic society. Per Motherboard, for every town resident that downloads Ring’s Neighbors app, the local police department gets credits toward buying cameras it can distribute to residents. This troubling relationship is worse than uncouth: it’s unsafe and diminishes public trust.
Some of the “features” Ring has been considering adding would considerably increase the danger it poses. Integrated face recognition software would enable the worst type of privacy invasion of individuals, and potentially force every person approaching a Ring doorbell to have their face scanned and cross-checked against a database of other faces without their consent. License plate scanning could match people’s faces to their cars. Alerting users to local 911 calls as part of the “crime news” alerts on its app, Neighbors, would instill even more fear, and probably sell additional Ring services.
Just today Amazon announced a one-year moratorium on police use of its dangerous “Rekognition” facial recognition tool. This follows an announcement from IBM that it will no longer develop or research face recognition technology, in part because of its use in mass surveillance, policing, and racial profiling.
We’re glad Amazon has admitted that the unregulated use of face recognition can do harm to vulnerable communities. Now it’s time for it to admit the dangers of Ring-police partnerships, and stand behind its statement on police brutality.
Source: EFF.org
Jason Kelley is a Digital Strategist on EFF’s Activism Team. Before joining EFF, Jason managed marketing strategy and content for a software company that helps non-programmers learn to code, and advertising and marketing analytics for a student loan startup. Jason received his BA in English and Philosophy from Kent State University and an M.F.A. in creative writing from The University of the South. He tries daily to apply advice from his professor Sam Pickering, the inspiration for Robin Williams’ character in Dead Poets Society: “Take out the extra words. Make it go quicker.”
Matthew Guariglia is a policy analyst working on issues of surveillance and privacy at the local, state, and federal level. He received a PhD in history at the University of Connecticut where his research focused on the intersection of race, immigration, U.S. imperialism, and policing in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to the Freedom of Information-centered outlet Muckrock and his bylines have also appeared in the Washington Post, Slate, and Motherboard. Matthew is a visiting scholar in the department of history at UC-Berkeley and serves as an editor of “Disciplining the City,” a series on the history of urban policing and incarceration at the Urban History Association’s blog The Metropole. (Photo by Zack Garlitos)
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-10--Hvar Croatia Suspends 5G; Ministry of Health Recommends Reducing Cell Phone Radiation and EMF Exposu

Hvar Croatia Suspends 5G; Ministry of Health Recommends Reducing Cell Phone Radiation and EMF Exposure

5G opposition is worldwide .
Cities AND countries have taken action to ban , delay , and halt deployment due to health and safety risks and warnings ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 .
7 .
8 , 9 ) .
Since 2018 , there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after it was turned on ( see 1 .
2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Of course , other sources of Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “ Electrosmog ” ) can make cause symptoms and illness too .
Electrosmog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WiFi .
Kudos to Hvar Croatia for suspending the 5G rollout AND actively educating citizens about health risks from EMF and wireless radiation exposure .
Hvar Croatia has suspended the introduction of 5G technology “ until an independent and impartial study proves that such technology has no negative impact on humans and the environment , the Town Council decided unanimously… ” Hvar will set up a task force to research the issue over the next 6 months .
Hvar was one of the areas for which the Croatian Regulatory Authority for Network Industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5G network .
News from CroatiaWeek June 6 , 2020 Hvar suspends introduction of 5G technology Worldwide cities are calling to halt 5G until safety can be assured .
500 Cities in Italy have issued halt 5G resolution joining cities in the US , Switzerland , Australia , Greece and more .
The Ministry of Health of Croatia maintains a dedicated web page , and communicates with concerned citizens on the issue of electromagnetic fields and cell phone radiation .
EHT translated a video on cell phone radiation the Ministry issued .
Note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EHT added more tips to reduce exposure .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Two downloadable brochures for the public were published in 2016 : a descriptive brochure explaining the EMF protection principles , and a Q & A brochure .
• Brochure : Croatia : Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation The most common questions and answers • Regulations in the field of protection against electromagnetic fields in the Republic of Croatia • Regular monitoring of EMF from antennas : The owner of the electromagnetic field source is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electromagnetic field levels every three years and submit the results to the Ministry of Health .
The Ministry has a webpage hosting an educational video to educate families on how to reduce radiation from the cell phone .
Read about how more cities are halting 5G here .
Activist Post reports regularly about opposition to 5G and other sources of unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
5G opposition is worldwide. Cities AND countries have taken action to ban, delay, and halt deployment due to health and safety risks and warnings (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7. 8, 9). Since 2018, there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after it was turned on (see 1. 2, 3, 4). Of course, other sources of Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “Electrosmog”) can make cause symptoms and illness too. Electrosmog includes Bluetooth, cell phone radiation and WiFi.
Kudos to Hvar Croatia for suspending the 5G rollout AND actively educating citizens about health risks from EMF and wireless radiation exposure.
From Environmental Health Trust:
Hvar Croatia has suspended the introduction of 5G technology “until an independent and impartial study proves that such technology has no negative impact on humans and the environment, the Town Council decided unanimously…”
Hvar will set up a task force to research the issue over the next 6 months. Hvar was one of the areas for which the Croatian Regulatory Authority for Network Industries had issued temporary licences to test the 5G network. News from CroatiaWeek June 6, 2020 Hvar suspends introduction of 5G technology
Worldwide cities are calling to halt 5G until safety can be assured. 500 Cities in Italy have issued halt 5G resolution joining cities in the US, Switzerland, Australia, Greece and more.
The Croatia Ministry of Health Recommends Reducing Cell Phone Radiation
The Ministry of Health of Croatia maintains a dedicated web page, and communicates with concerned citizens on the issue of electromagnetic fields and cell phone radiation. EHT translated a video on cell phone radiation the Ministry issued. Note: After the Croatia video excerpt, EHT added more tips to reduce exposure.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Two downloadable brochures for the public were published in 2016: a descriptive brochure explaining the EMF protection principles, and a Q&A brochure.
The Ministry has a webpage hosting an educational video to educate families on how to reduce radiation from the cell phone.
Read about how more cities are halting 5G here.
Activist Post reports regularly about opposition to 5G and other sources of unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.