activistpost--2020-06-23--Colorado Passes Historic Bill Ending Qualified Immunity for Cops

When George Floyd was killed last month , the nation was shaken out of its slumber in regard to police brutality in this country .
Cities quite literally burned over the anger that has been boiling up over decades as cops kill people — who are often innocent , unarmed , and even children — and get away with it .
Sadly , however , the organized groups behind the protests only appear to be pushing a single , partial solution of “ defunding ” the police .
While this is certainly something to be considered , it is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike the root of the problem , we need bad cops held accountable .
One major way to do this is by ending Qualified Immunity .
Luckily , this idea is now picking up steam .
This month , Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed an omnibus reform bill into law to end qualified immunity for police officers in the state .
“ This is a long overdue moment of national reflection , ” Polis said at the signing ceremony .
“ This is a meaningful , substantial reform bill.
” A summary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes : The bill allows a person who has a constitutional right secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado constitution that is infringed upon by a peace officer to bring a civil action for the violation .
A plaintiff who prevails in the lawsuit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees , and a defendant in an individual suit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees for defending any frivolous claims .
Qualified immunity and a defendant ’ s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the civil action .
The bill requires a political subdivision of the state to indemnify its employees for such a claim ; except that if the peace officer ’ s employer determines the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful , then the peace officer is personally liable for 5 percent of the judgment or $ 25,000 , whichever is less , unless the judgment is uncollectible from the officer , then the officer ’ s employer satisfies the whole judgment .
Become an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month at Patreon .
A peace officer…employed by a local government who , under color of law , subjects or causes to be subjected , including failing to intervene , any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors secured by the bill of rights , Article II of the State Constitution , is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief… qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section .
“ Colorado has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both allows citizens to bring civil rights claims against police officers who violate their rights under the Colorado Constitution , and also clarifies that qualified immunity will not be a defense to any such claims , ” the Cato Institute ’ s Project on Criminal Justice policy analyst Jay Schweikert , and expert on qualified immunity , told Law & Crime .
“ While this law doesn ’ t affect the availability of qualified immunity in federal cases , it does ensure that Coloradans who are the victims of police misconduct will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As TFTP has reported , when it comes to police accountability , one overarching question remains .
‘ Do we want to live in a society whereby law enforcement officials can completely violate a person ’ s constitutional rights and get away with it ?
’ For our society to be free , the answer to that question must be a resounding , powerful , unwavering , ‘ Hell No !
’ Unfortunately , however , this is the case most of the time thanks to law enforcement personnel ’ s use and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity , unless their actions violated “ clearly established ” federal law or constitutional rights .
The Supreme Court created Qualified Immunity in 1982 .
With that novel invention , the court granted all government officials immunity for violating constitutional and civil rights unless the victims of those violations can show that the rights were “ clearly established.
” As Anya Bidwell points out , although innocuous sounding , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly impossible to overcome .
It requires a victim to identify an earlier decision by the Supreme Court , or a federal appeals court in the same jurisdiction holding that precisely the same conduct under the same circumstances is illegal or unconstitutional .
If none exists , the official is immune .
Whether the official ’ s actions are unconstitutional , intentional or malicious is irrelevant to the test .
An example of this would be the family of George Floyd attempting to seek compensation for his death .
Because there has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a cop kneeling on a man ’ s neck until he dies being declared unconstitutional , a judge in Minnesota could easily dismiss their case .
It is essentially a get out of jail free card for cops and it perpetuates the problem of police violence by giving bad cops a free pass .
Steps like this in Colorado are essential to reining in the terror of bad cops .
This is why everyone needs to call their representatives and tell them to support the bill proposed by Libertarian Congressman Justin Amash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which will end Qualified Immunity on a national level .
“ Qualified immunity protects police and other officials from consequences even for horrific rights abuses , ” said Amash .
“ It prevents accountability for the ‘ bad apples ’ and undermines the public ’ s faith in law enforcement .
It ’ s at odds with the text of the law and the intent of Congress , and it ultimately leaves Americans ’ rights without appropriate protection .
Members of Congress have a duty to ensure government officials can be held accountable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ending qualified immunity is a crucial part of that.
” If you are interested in the other paradigm-shifting solutions into quelling police brutality and Americans ’ deprivation of rights , we propose five major solutions , including Qualified Immunity , that will have drastic changes .
You can read that here .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state .
Agorist has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world .
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of @ @ @ @

By Matt Agorist
When George Floyd was killed last month, the nation was shaken out of its slumber in regard to police brutality in this country. Cities quite literally burned over the anger that has been boiling up over decades as cops kill people — who are often innocent, unarmed, and even children — and get away with it. Sadly, however, the organized groups behind the protests only appear to be pushing a single, partial solution of “defunding” the police. While this is certainly something to be considered, it is a bandaid on sucking chest wound. To strike the root of the problem, we need bad cops held accountable. One major way to do this is by ending Qualified Immunity. Luckily, this idea is now picking up steam.
This month, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed an omnibus reform bill into law to end qualified immunity for police officers in the state.
“This is a long overdue moment of national reflection,” Polis said at the signing ceremony. “This is a meaningful, substantial reform bill.”
A summary of the sea change from the Colorado legislature notes:
The bill allows a person who has a constitutional right secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado constitution that is infringed upon by a peace officer to bring a civil action for the violation. A plaintiff who prevails in the lawsuit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, and a defendant in an individual suit is entitled to reasonable attorney fees for defending any frivolous claims. Qualified immunity and a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct are not defenses is not a defense to the civil action. The bill requires a political subdivision of the state to indemnify its employees for such a claim; except that if the peace officer’s employer determines the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the peace officer is personally liable for 5 percent of the judgment or $25,000, whichever is less, unless the judgment is uncollectible from the officer, then the officer’s employer satisfies the whole judgment .
‼BREAKING‼: @GovofCO has signed #SB217 into law. Colorado becomes one of the first states in the country to END qualified immunity as part of this historic comprehensive police accountability bill. pic.twitter.com/ZHCKRpSaGL — ACLU of Colorado (@ACLUofColorado) June 19, 2020
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
The precedent-setting law reads in part:
A peace officer…employed by a local government who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors secured by the bill of rights, Article II of the State Constitution, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief… qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section.
“Colorado has passed historic civil rights legislation, which both allows citizens to bring civil rights claims against police officers who violate their rights under the Colorado Constitution, and also clarifies that qualified immunity will not be a defense to any such claims,” the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice policy analyst Jay Schweikert, and expert on qualified immunity, told Law&Crime. “While this law doesn’t affect the availability of qualified immunity in federal cases, it does ensure that Coloradans who are the victims of police misconduct will have a meaningful remedy in state court.”
As TFTP has reported, when it comes to police accountability, one overarching question remains. ‘Do we want to live in a society whereby law enforcement officials can completely violate a person’s constitutional rights and get away with it?’ For our society to be free, the answer to that question must be a resounding, powerful, unwavering, ‘Hell No!’
Unfortunately, however, this is the case most of the time thanks to law enforcement personnel’s use and abuse of Qualified Immunity.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated “clearly established” federal law or constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court created Qualified Immunity in 1982. With that novel invention, the court granted all government officials immunity for violating constitutional and civil rights unless the victims of those violations can show that the rights were “clearly established.”
As Anya Bidwell points out, although innocuous sounding, the clearly established test is a legal obstacle nearly impossible to overcome. It requires a victim to identify an earlier decision by the Supreme Court, or a federal appeals court in the same jurisdiction holding that precisely the same conduct under the same circumstances is illegal or unconstitutional. If none exists, the official is immune. Whether the official’s actions are unconstitutional, intentional or malicious is irrelevant to the test.
An example of this would be the family of George Floyd attempting to seek compensation for his death. Because there has never been a “clearly established” case of a cop kneeling on a man’s neck until he dies being declared unconstitutional, a judge in Minnesota could easily dismiss their case.
It is essentially a get out of jail free card for cops and it perpetuates the problem of police violence by giving bad cops a free pass.
Steps like this in Colorado are essential to reining in the terror of bad cops. This is why everyone needs to call their representatives and tell them to support the bill proposed by Libertarian Congressman Justin Amash (L-Michigan), H.R. 7085 which will end Qualified Immunity on a national level.
“Qualified immunity protects police and other officials from consequences even for horrific rights abuses,” said Amash. “It prevents accountability for the ‘bad apples’ and undermines the public’s faith in law enforcement. It’s at odds with the text of the law and the intent of Congress, and it ultimately leaves Americans’ rights without appropriate protection. Members of Congress have a duty to ensure government officials can be held accountable for violating Americans’ rights, and ending qualified immunity is a crucial part of that.”
If you are interested in the other paradigm-shifting solutions into quelling police brutality and Americans’ deprivation of rights, we propose five major solutions, including Qualified Immunity, that will have drastic changes. You can read that here.
Source: The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-23--Record 34.8 Million Utility Smart Meter Shipments for 2021 Despite Skyrocketing Bills, Fires, Explos

Record 34.8 Million Utility Smart Meter Shipments for 2021 Despite Skyrocketing Bills, Fires, Explosions, etc.

Utility “ Smart ” Meters are awful and you probably have them whether you know it or not .
Ten of millions of them – electric , gas , and water – have been installed on homes and throughout communities in the U.S. and worldwide .
They are so unpopular ( see 1 , 2 ) and problematic and EXPENSIVE ( see 1 , 2 ) that many utility companies refer to them by other names to confuse customers .
Most ( if not all ) of the cost for their installation AND replacement have been and continue to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental groups ( see 1 , 2 ) – promised they would help customers significantly reduce their energy use and lower their bills .
Because they are 2-way transmitting they actually USE MORE ENERGY to operate than original analog meters which are 1-way transmitting .
That additional use is at least sometimes being passed on to customers ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Ridiculously high measurement errors have also been scientifically documented and reported .
From the jump , so many problems and complaints were reported – including fires and explosions ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 ) -that a documentary was produced about these meters in 2013 and then updated in 2017 to include MORE problems and complaints .
Nevertheless , an estimated 34.8 million are being shipped out for installation next year .
Argh .
According to a new report from the IoT analyst firm Berg Insight , annual shipments of smart energy meters in Europe will reach a record level of 34.8 million units in 2021 .
Temporarily postponed meter installations due to COVID-19 are expected to have a slightly negative impact on shipment levels in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meters installed during the year is anticipated to be 10 percent lower compared to the previous year .
Annual smart electricity meter shipments amounted to 20.9 million units in 2019 and the corresponding figure for smart gas meters was 8.5 million units .
Major first-wave rollouts in countries such as France and the Netherlands are expected to be completed according to timelines in the next couple of years while the largely delayed UK rollout is forecasted to ramp up during the same time period .
Meanwhile , Italy is now in the late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meters as well as in the in the midst of its second-wave rollout of smart electricity meters , contributing with significant volumes in the next few years .
With large-scale second-wave rollouts also beginning in Sweden and Finland during 2020–2021 , upgrades of first-generation smart electricity metering systems are forecasted to account for 30–35 percent of annual European smart electricity meter shipments during 2020–2024 .
“ Smart ” Meters emit Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “ Electrosmog ” ) which can also make people , plants and animals sick ( see 1 , 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utility companies because of this too ( see 1 , 2 .
3 ) .
Utility companies keep installing them anyway because “ Smart ” Meters collect customer usage data 24/7 , whereas original analog meters DO NOT .
Utilities collect and analyze usage data so they can market more products and services to customers and/or sell it to 3rd parties a la “ Surveillance Capitalism.
” Double Argh .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Activist Post reports regularly about “ Smart ” Meters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , visit our archives and the following websites : Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Utility “Smart” Meters are awful and you probably have them whether you know it or not. Ten of millions of them – electric, gas, and water – have been installed on homes and throughout communities in the U.S. and worldwide.
They are so unpopular (see 1, 2) and problematic and EXPENSIVE (see 1, 2) that many utility companies refer to them by other names to confuse customers. Most (if not all) of the cost for their installation AND replacement have been and continue to be passed onto customers. Proponents – including environmental groups (see 1, 2) – promised they would help customers significantly reduce their energy use and lower their bills. NOPE!!! Because they are 2-way transmitting they actually USE MORE ENERGY to operate than original analog meters which are 1-way transmitting. That additional use is at least sometimes being passed on to customers (see 1, 2). Ridiculously high measurement errors have also been scientifically documented and reported.
From the jump, so many problems and complaints were reported – including fires and explosions (see 1, 2. 3. 4) -that a documentary was produced about these meters in 2013 and then updated in 2017 to include MORE problems and complaints. Nevertheless, an estimated 34.8 million are being shipped out for installation next year. Argh.
From IoT Business News:
Post COVID-19 smart meter shipments to hit 34.8 million units in 2021 According to a new report from the IoT analyst firm Berg Insight, annual shipments of smart energy meters in Europe will reach a record level of 34.8 million units in 2021. Temporarily postponed meter installations due to COVID-19 are expected to have a slightly negative impact on shipment levels in 2020 and the total number of smart meters installed during the year is anticipated to be 10 percent lower compared to the previous year. Annual smart electricity meter shipments amounted to 20.9 million units in 2019 and the corresponding figure for smart gas meters was 8.5 million units. Major first-wave rollouts in countries such as France and the Netherlands are expected to be completed according to timelines in the next couple of years while the largely delayed UK rollout is forecasted to ramp up during the same time period. Meanwhile, Italy is now in the late stages of its deployment of smart gas meters as well as in the in the midst of its second-wave rollout of smart electricity meters, contributing with significant volumes in the next few years. With large-scale second-wave rollouts also beginning in Sweden and Finland during 2020–2021, upgrades of first-generation smart electricity metering systems are forecasted to account for 30–35 percent of annual European smart electricity meter shipments during 2020–2024. https://iotbusinessnews.com/2020/06/10/19042-post-covid-19-smart-meter-shipments-to-hit-34-8-million-units-in-2021/
“Smart” Meters emit Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) which can also make people, plants and animals sick (see 1, 2). People have taken action against utility companies because of this too (see 1, 2. 3). Utility companies keep installing them anyway because “Smart” Meters collect customer usage data 24/7, whereas original analog meters DO NOT. Utilities collect and analyze usage data so they can market more products and services to customers and/or sell it to 3rd parties a la “Surveillance Capitalism.” Double Argh.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
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. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-23--Why People Have Always Held Gold

Why People Have Always Held Gold

The current phase of the gold bull market , which started last year , is – we believe – the third and final wave of the secular bull run tracking back to 2001 .
It ’ s going to create a tidal bore of immense size and power .
A wave that those who hold the metal ( and silver ) can ride as insurance against state-sponsored value-destruction of a country ’ s currency , and as real money that can not and has not ever gone to zero in recorded history .
It could last 3 or 4 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or beyond .
Yes , the time will come when we want to be mostly out of gold and silver , with one marker to watch being the Dow/Gold Ratio , but that time is a number of years in the future .
In any event , diverse energies ( and rationales ) are building around the globe , which should make this a run for the record books – a ride you really don ’ t want to miss !
This time , gold will break out – possibly by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that most investors can ’ t begin to imagine .
The price will be a function of how long it takes for higher rates of inflation to kick in from the stagflation environment similar to what took place in the late 1970s .
A “ from-the-heart ” talk about what holding gold means to people… The following accounts about what gold means on a personal level came to me unsolicited and fairly close to each other time wise .
The first is from a commercial airline pilot with deep prior life experiences in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote : Gold does not deteriorate or tarnish .
These traits give it an ability to last forever , and transcend through different dimensions of time .
Humanity is acutely aware of both its own mortality and the short time we get to exist in this universe .
In our collective view there is only one who is immortal , transcending time and space , God… Who never dies .
Lives forever , changing only in form and dimension .
Gold comes very close to duplicating these traits , but without the imaginary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a supreme being .
I think people instinctively want to be close to immortality – capable of being in hope , appreciation , and envy for ( gold ’ s ) ability to last indefinitely .
By holding a gold coin in your hand , you are interacting with an immortal substance .
If we could construct a human made of gold , she/he would live forever , but that ’ s another story… Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
The second comment comes from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David , I listened and reflected last week for many hours to a multitude of views on the future of gold and silver .
At the end , in a state of confusion , I remembered what my Dad had said to me many a time : 1 ) One can never have enough physical gold .
2 ) I have NEVER sold a milligram of gold EVER .
I only bought , and then bought some more .
3 ) There is no such thing as cheap or expensive gold , only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And when it ’ s unavailable , it is too late .
4 ) Don ’ t try to outfox the market , just buy when you have funds .
Protect yourself against yourself .
Don ’ t waste time and energy .
Simply buy and squirrel it away .
Right now , even though the gold market is relatively quiet , in a broad sideways to higher trend on the charts , in this perceived calm – traditional summer doldrums not withstanding – precious metals can be set off by a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panic buying in response to a new disaster .
This could take the form of a ‘ second wave ’ of infections from the Wuhan virus , a failure of a gold ETF or the COMEX to honor physical delivery requirements , or a victory by Joe Biden in the presidential election .
Right now , the gold market is not priced for any of these outcomes .
It won ’ t take all three events to drive gold higher .
Any one ( of them ) would do just fine .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
We have gold in our cells… Recently I learned something new from a book titled , Gold is a Better Way , by Adam Barrata .
He wrote : 96 % of the human body is composed of Oxygen , Carbon , Hydrogen and Nitrogen .
The other 4 % consists of other elements .
We absorb small amounts of gold from our environment , and gold is present in our cells at birth .
The average person ’ s body weight is 154 pounds .
It contains 0.229 milligrams of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stars in the sky and feel small because the Universe is so vast .
I look at the Universe in a different way .
I understand that the Universe was created from an incredible explosion of matter .
We , as human beings are a part of that matter .
When I look at the Universe I realize that the stars and the elements that make up its matter are inside of me , and rather than feel small , I feel vast .
My Conclusion : It ’ s time to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more vast.
” Hopefully , this essay has got you thinking about why humankind is more connected to gold than you ever thought possible .
Maybe it ’ s why every time I ’ ve seen someone – whether it was a centa-millionaire or just “ regular ” folks like us – hold a gold coin or bar in their hand… they started to smile .
We may think we understand why they react this way , but now you know just how deep it goes .
Yes – you and I are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were born with – those 0.229 grams – is only worth about $ 14 .
That value is likely to go up quite a bit in the coming years as physical gold makes new all-time highs .
But it ’ s going to be difficult for you to “ cash in ” with it !
Why not pick up some “ hold in your hand ” gold soon .
Before summer wanes .
While the metals and miners are backing and filling on the charts .
This could be a golden opportunity for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the last best one for a long time .
David H. Smith is Senior Analyst for TheMorganReport.com , a regular contributor to MoneyMetals.com as well as the LODE Cryptographic Silver Monetary System Project .
He has investigated precious metals ’ mines and exploration sites in Argentina , Chile , Peru , Mexico , Bolivia , China , Canada and the U.S .
He shares resource sector observations with readers , the media , and North American investment conference attendees .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By David Smith
The current phase of the gold bull market, which started last year, is – we believe – the third and final wave of the secular bull run tracking back to 2001.
It’s going to create a tidal bore of immense size and power. A wave that those who hold the metal (and silver) can ride as insurance against state-sponsored value-destruction of a country’s currency, and as real money that cannot and has not ever gone to zero in recorded history.
It could last 3 or 4 years, until the end of this decade… or beyond.
Yes, the time will come when we want to be mostly out of gold and silver, with one marker to watch being the Dow/Gold Ratio, but that time is a number of years in the future.
In any event, diverse energies (and rationales) are building around the globe, which should make this a run for the record books – a ride you really don’t want to miss!
This time, gold will break out – possibly by the end of 2020 and rise to a number that most investors can’t begin to imagine. The price will be a function of how long it takes for higher rates of inflation to kick in from the stagflation environment similar to what took place in the late 1970s.
A “from-the-heart” talk about what holding gold really means to people…
The following accounts about what gold means on a personal level came to me unsolicited and fairly close to each other time wise. The first is from a commercial airline pilot with deep prior life experiences in Europe and the Middle East. He wrote:
Gold does not deteriorate or tarnish. These traits give it an ability to last forever, and transcend through different dimensions of time. Humanity is acutely aware of both its own mortality and the short time we get to exist in this universe. In our collective view there is only one who is immortal, transcending time and space, God… Who never dies. Lives forever, changing only in form and dimension. Gold comes very close to duplicating these traits, but without the imaginary human abilities that religion has assigned to a supreme being. I think people instinctively want to be close to immortality – capable of being in hope, appreciation, and envy for (gold’s) ability to last indefinitely. By holding a gold coin in your hand, you are interacting with an immortal substance. If we could construct a human made of gold, she/he would live forever, but that’s another story…
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
The second comment comes from a colleague in the United Kingdom:
Hi David, I listened and reflected last week for many hours to a multitude of views on the future of gold and silver. At the end, in a state of confusion, I remembered what my Dad had said to me many a time: 1) One can never have enough physical gold. 2) I have NEVER sold a milligram of gold EVER. I only bought, and then bought some more. 3) There is no such thing as cheap or expensive gold, only gold that is available or not. And when it’s unavailable, it is too late. 4) Don’t try to outfox the market, just buy when you have funds. Protect yourself against yourself. Don’t waste time and energy. Simply buy and squirrel it away.
Beware the summer doldrums…
As Jim Rickards says:
Right now, even though the gold market is relatively quiet, in a broad sideways to higher trend on the charts, in this perceived calm – traditional summer doldrums not withstanding – precious metals can be set off by a number of unexpected events. A driver is panic buying in response to a new disaster. This could take the form of a ‘second wave’ of infections from the Wuhan virus, a failure of a gold ETF or the COMEX to honor physical delivery requirements, or a victory by Joe Biden in the presidential election. Right now, the gold market is not priced for any of these outcomes. It won’t take all three events to drive gold higher. Any one (of them) would do just fine. But none of the three can be ruled out.
We have gold in our cells…
Recently I learned something new from a book titled, Gold is a Better Way, by Adam Barrata. He wrote:
96% of the human body is composed of Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen. The other 4% consists of other elements. We absorb small amounts of gold from our environment, and gold is present in our cells at birth. The average person’s body weight is 154 pounds. It contains 0.229 milligrams of gold… Many people look up at the stars in the sky and feel small because the Universe is so vast. I look at the Universe in a different way. I understand that the Universe was created from an incredible explosion of matter. We, as human beings are a part of that matter. When I look at the Universe I realize that the stars and the elements that make up its matter are inside of me, and rather than feel small, I feel vast.
My Conclusion: It’s time to start feeling – and being financially – “more vast.”
Hopefully, this essay has got you thinking about why humankind is more connected to gold than you ever thought possible.
Maybe it’s why every time I’ve seen someone – whether it was a centa-millionaire or just “regular” folks like us – hold a gold coin or bar in their hand… they started to smile. We may think we understand why they react this way, but now you know just how deep it goes. Yes – you and I are truly golden beings!
The gold we were born with – those 0.229 grams – is only worth about $14. That value is likely to go up quite a bit in the coming years as physical gold makes new all-time highs. But it’s going to be difficult for you to “cash in” with it!
Why not pick up some “hold in your hand” gold soon. Before summer wanes. While the metals and miners are backing and filling on the charts. This could be a golden opportunity for you in more ways than one, perhaps the last best one for a long time.
David H. Smith is Senior Analyst for TheMorganReport.com, a regular contributor to MoneyMetals.com as well as the LODE Cryptographic Silver Monetary System Project. He has investigated precious metals’ mines and exploration sites in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Bolivia, China, Canada and the U.S. He shares resource sector observations with readers, the media, and North American investment conference attendees.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-24--Victory: Indiana Supreme Court Rules that Police Can’t Force Smartphone User to Unlock Her Phone

In courts across the country , EFF has been arguing that the police can not constitutionally require you to unlock your phone or give them your password , and today the Indiana Supreme Court issued a strong opinion agreeing with us .
In the case , Seo v. State , the court found that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protected a woman against unlocking her phone because complying with the order was a form of “ testimony ” under the Fifth Amendment .
Indiana joins Pennsylvania , which ruled strongly in favor of the Fifth Amendment privilege in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , state supreme courts in New Jersey and Oregon are also considering this issue .
In Seo , the defendant reported to law enforcement outside of Indianapolis that she had been the victim of a rape and allowed a detective to examine her iPhone for evidence .
But the state never filed charges against Seo ’ s alleged rapist , identified as “ D.S.
” Instead , the detective suspected that Seo was harassing D.S .
with spoofed calls and texts , and she was ultimately arrested and charged with felony stalking .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant to go through Seo ’ s phone , but a court order to force her to unlock it .
Seo refused , invoking her Fifth Amendment rights .
The trial court held her in contempt , but an intermediate appeals court reversed .
In an amicus brief on behalf of EFF and ACLU and at oral argument in the Indiana Supreme Court , we explained that the compelled recollection and use of passwords to encrypted devices should be viewed as a modern form of “ testimonial ” communications , which are protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some courts have struggled with the concept of testimony in the context of compelled decryption , a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court case defines it as anything that requires a person to disclose “ the contents of his own mind.
” It ’ s also clear that nonverbal acts can be testimonial , such as being forced to respond truthfully to police questioning with a “ nod or headshake , ” or to produce a gun that police believe was used in a crime .
And in a 1990 case , the U.S. Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drunk driving couldn ’ t be forced to tell police the date of his sixth birthday , even though officers clearly knew the answer and were simply trying to obtain evidence of his intoxication .
The Indiana Supreme Court agreed , writing that unlocking a phone “ communicates a breadth of factual information , ” since it allows the government to infer that the suspect knows the password to the device and thus possessed the files on the phone .
This gives “ the State information it did not previously know—precisely what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In addition to the question of “ testimony , ” however , courts in compelled decryption cases have struggled with Fisher v. United States , a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that introduced the concept of a “ foregone conclusion.
” Fisher involved a subpoena for an individual ’ s tax documents , where the government could demonstrate that it already knew all of the information it would otherwise learn from a response to the subpoena .
In other words , it was a “ foregone conclusion ” that the specific documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and belonged to the individual .
Although the Supreme Court has never again relied on this foregone conclusion rationale , the government has built it into a full-blown “ doctrine.
” State and federal prosecutors have invoked it in nearly every forced decryption case to date .
In Seo , the State argued that all that compelling the defendant to unlock her phone would reveal is that she knows her own passcode , which would be a foregone conclusion once it “ has proven that the phone belongs to her.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this would be a dangerous rule for the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt .
If all the government has to do to get you to unlock your phone is to show you know the password , it would have immense leverage to do so in any case where it encounters encryption .
The Fifth Amendment is intended to avoid putting people to a “ cruel trilemma ” : self-incriminate , lie about knowing the password , or risk being held in contempt for refusing to cooperate .
Instead , it ’ s clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the foregone conclusion rationale is very narrow .
The Court has applied it in Fisher , a case involving business records , and only where the testimonial communication at issue was the act of providing specified documents .
The Court has made clear there is no foregone conclusion exception where a person is required to use the contents of their mind , even in responding to a more open-ended document subpoena .
So there should be no exception to the Fifth Amendment when the government compels disclosure or use of a passcode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In its opinion , the Indiana Supreme Court largely agreed .
It rejected the state ’ s argument that it could invoke the foregone conclusion rationale if it could show that the defendant knew her password .
Instead , it held that the state was “ fishing for incriminating evidence ” without any knowledge of what was on her phone , and that forcing her to unlock her phone under these circumstances would “ sound the death knell for a constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination in the digital age.
” Although that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included a lengthy discussion of why the foregone conclusion rationale should probably never apply to compelled decryption cases .
It noted that smartphones contain “ far more private information than a personal diary or an individual tax return ever could , ” a fact that has led the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the application of pre-digital caselaw to government searches of phones .
The Indiana court wrote that applying Fisher ’ s foregone conclusion rationale “ would mean expanding a decades-old and narrowly defined legal exception to dynamically developing technology that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Finally , the court noted that police have many tools to investigate users of encrypted devices without compromising users ’ constitutional rights .
In light of these tools , compelling a user to unlock a phone would “ tip the scales too far in the State ’ s favor , resulting in a seismic erosion of the Fifth Amendment ’ s privilege against self-incrimination.
” We ’ re gratified by the ruling , and we ’ re watching for courts in New Jersey , Oregon and elsewhere to continue the trend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senior staff attorney on the Electronic Frontier Foundation ’ s civil liberties team .
He focuses on EFF ’ s national security and privacy docket , as well as the Coders ’ Rights Project .
While in law school , Andrew worked at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society , the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Speech , Privacy , and Technology Project , and the Center for Democracy and Technology .
He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and an M.F.A .
in creative writing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boggle and donuts .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Andrew Crocker
In courts across the country, EFF has been arguing that the police cannot constitutionally require you to unlock your phone or give them your password, and today the Indiana Supreme Court issued a strong opinion agreeing with us. In the case, Seo v. State, the court found that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protected a woman against unlocking her phone because complying with the order was a form of “testimony” under the Fifth Amendment. Indiana joins Pennsylvania, which ruled strongly in favor of the Fifth Amendment privilege in a compelled decryption case last year. Meanwhile, state supreme courts in New Jersey and Oregon are also considering this issue.
In Seo, the defendant reported to law enforcement outside of Indianapolis that she had been the victim of a rape and allowed a detective to examine her iPhone for evidence. But the state never filed charges against Seo’s alleged rapist, identified as “D.S.” Instead, the detective suspected that Seo was harassing D.S. with spoofed calls and texts, and she was ultimately arrested and charged with felony stalking. The state not only sought a search warrant to go through Seo’s phone, but a court order to force her to unlock it. Seo refused, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights. The trial court held her in contempt, but an intermediate appeals court reversed.
In an amicus brief on behalf of EFF and ACLU and at oral argument in the Indiana Supreme Court, we explained that the compelled recollection and use of passwords to encrypted devices should be viewed as a modern form of “testimonial” communications, which are protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege. Although some courts have struggled with the concept of testimony in the context of compelled decryption, a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court case defines it as anything that requires a person to disclose “the contents of his own mind.” It’s also clear that nonverbal acts can be testimonial, such as being forced to respond truthfully to police questioning with a “nod or headshake,” or to produce a gun that police believe was used in a crime. And in a 1990 case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a motorist suspected of drunk driving couldn’t be forced to tell police the date of his sixth birthday, even though officers clearly knew the answer and were simply trying to obtain evidence of his intoxication.
The Indiana Supreme Court agreed, writing that unlocking a phone “communicates a breadth of factual information,” since it allows the government to infer that the suspect knows the password to the device and thus possessed the files on the phone. This gives “the State information it did not previously know—precisely what the privilege against self-incrimination is designed to prevent.”
In addition to the question of “testimony,” however, courts in compelled decryption cases have struggled with Fisher v. United States, a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that introduced the concept of a “foregone conclusion.” Fisher involved a subpoena for an individual’s tax documents, where the government could demonstrate that it already knew all of the information it would otherwise learn from a response to the subpoena. In other words, it was a “foregone conclusion” that the specific documents the government sought existed, were authentic, and belonged to the individual. Although the Supreme Court has never again relied on this foregone conclusion rationale, the government has built it into a full-blown “doctrine.” State and federal prosecutors have invoked it in nearly every forced decryption case to date. In Seo, the State argued that all that compelling the defendant to unlock her phone would reveal is that she knows her own passcode, which would be a foregone conclusion once it “has proven that the phone belongs to her.”
In our amicus brief, we argued that this would be a dangerous rule for the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt. If all the government has to do to get you to unlock your phone is to show you know the password, it would have immense leverage to do so in any case where it encounters encryption. The Fifth Amendment is intended to avoid putting people to a “cruel trilemma”: self-incriminate, lie about knowing the password, or risk being held in contempt for refusing to cooperate. Instead, it’s clear from Fisher and later Supreme Court cases that the foregone conclusion rationale is very narrow. The Court has applied it in Fisher, a case involving business records, and only where the testimonial communication at issue was the act of providing specified documents. The Court has made clear there is no foregone conclusion exception where a person is required to use the contents of their mind, even in responding to a more open-ended document subpoena. So there should be no exception to the Fifth Amendment when the government compels disclosure or use of a passcode to unlock and decrypt a digital device.
In its opinion, the Indiana Supreme Court largely agreed. It rejected the state’s argument that it could invoke the foregone conclusion rationale if it could show that the defendant knew her password. Instead, it held that the state was “fishing for incriminating evidence” without any knowledge of what was on her phone, and that forcing her to unlock her phone under these circumstances would “sound the death knell for a constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination in the digital age.”
Although that resolved the case, the court also included a lengthy discussion of why the foregone conclusion rationale should probably never apply to compelled decryption cases. It noted that smartphones contain “far more private information than a personal diary or an individual tax return ever could,” a fact that has led the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the application of pre-digital caselaw to government searches of phones. The Indiana court wrote that applying Fisher’s foregone conclusion rationale “would mean expanding a decades-old and narrowly defined legal exception to dynamically developing technology that was in its infancy just a decade ago.” Finally, the court noted that police have many tools to investigate users of encrypted devices without compromising users’ constitutional rights. In light of these tools, compelling a user to unlock a phone would “tip the scales too far in the State’s favor, resulting in a seismic erosion of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.”
We’re gratified by the ruling, and we’re watching for courts in New Jersey, Oregon and elsewhere to continue the trend of protecting against compelled decryption.
Source: EFF.org
Andrew is a senior staff attorney on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s civil liberties team. He focuses on EFF’s national security and privacy docket, as well as the Coders’ Rights Project. While in law school, Andrew worked at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, and the Center for Democracy and Technology. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and an M.F.A. in creative writing from New York University. His interests include Boggle and donuts.
Image: Pixabay
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-24--Fact Check: How Invasive Are Contact Tracing Apps?

Journalist Derrick Broze breaks down the truth about those recent updates to iPhone and Android .
• Fact check : Google did not automatically sign up Android users for COVID-19 tracing app • UK : The Covid-19 track and trace app has not been automatically downloaded onto people ’ s phones • How Covid-19 Contact Tracing Works on Your Phone • Gulf states using COVID-19 contact tracing apps as mass surveillance tools , report says • Yes , Apple And Google Have Given Us A Serious Contact Tracing Problem—Here ’ s Why Derrick is the founder of TCRN .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization focused on empowering individuals through education , philosophy , health , and community organizing .
We work to create a world where corporate and state power does not rule over the lives of free human beings .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of @ @ @ @

By The Conscious Resistance
Journalist Derrick Broze breaks down the truth about those recent updates to iPhone and Android.
Sources:
Source: The Conscious Resistance
Derrick is the founder of TCRN. The Conscious Resistance Network is an independent media organization focused on empowering individuals through education, philosophy, health, and community organizing. We work to create a world where corporate and state power does not rule over the lives of free human beings.
Image: Pixabay
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-24--Electronic Frontier Foundation Needs Your Stories to Stop the Fitbit–Google Merger

There have been reports of Fitbits shocking wearers as well as causing rashes and other undesirable and scary issues .
Of course , activity trackers emit Electromagnetic Radiation which can cause a multitude of bothersome as well as life threatening health issues ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Nevertheless , many people still wear these devices and strap them on their children .
Doctors sometimes prescribe them to patients so they can remotely check their vital signs .
Employers sometimes require employees to wear them .
And nursing homes often require residents to wear them so that staff can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right ?
It ’ s possible that Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) may not know anything about any of that though .
They are , however , issuing super-huge warnings and opposition to a planned merger between Fitbit and Google .
There ’ s a dirty secret in the incredible growth of Silicon Valley ’ s tech giants : it ’ s a cheat .
Historically , US antitrust regulators would be deeply concerned about mergers with major competitors in concentrated markets ( “ mergers to monopoly ” ) and acquisitions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats ( “ catch and kill ” ) .
And while often permitted , vertical integration ( “ platform monopolies ” where the company that owns a key service competes with its own customers ) would at least merit close review .
But regulators have mostly been giving a pass to mergers and acquisitions in the tech space .
And that ’ s had huge consequences .
To a casual observer , companies like Google—now a division of parent company Alphabet—seem like energetic idea factories , spinning out new divisions at a bewildering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Google ’ s real source of “ innovation ” is its wallet as much as its brain trust : the company buys other companies more often than most of us buy groceries .
Two of Google ’ s signature products—Search and Gmail—are in-house projects , but the vast majority of its other successes came from snapping up other companies .
( And it ’ s hardly alone in this regard : Apple , Amazon , Microsoft , and the other titans of Silicon Valley have all grown primarily through gobbling up other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own winning products ) .
After years of complacency , U.S. financial regulators are finally asking awkward , pointed questions about these mergers .
A poster child for what ’ s wrong with merger-driven growth is the Google-Fitbit acquisition , which would see the dominant wearable fitness tracker company disappear into the Googleplex , along with its massive trove of sensitive user data .
That ’ s where you come in .
We want to ask the Department of Justice to stop this merger , and we want stories from Fitbit owners to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • Did your employer force ( or “ strongly encourage ” ) you to wear a Fitbit in order to receive company health benefits ?
• Did you buy a Fitbit because you didn ’ t want to give Google even more of your data ?
• Does the Google-Fitbit merger make you feel like there ’ s no point in opting out of Google data-collection because they ’ ll just buy any company that has a successful alternative ?
If you ’ ve got an on-point personal story about your Fitbit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
Contact us at [ email protected ] Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology .
For more information , visit our archives .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
There have been reports of Fitbits shocking wearers as well as causing rashes and other undesirable and scary issues. Of course, activity trackers emit Electromagnetic Radiation which can cause a multitude of bothersome as well as life threatening health issues (see 1, 2). Nevertheless, many people still wear these devices and strap them on their children. Doctors sometimes prescribe them to patients so they can remotely check their vital signs. Employers sometimes require employees to wear them. And nursing homes often require residents to wear them so that staff can more easily track them. Not good, right?
It’s possible that Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) may not know anything about any of that though. They are, however, issuing super-huge warnings and opposition to a planned merger between Fitbit and Google.
From EFF:
Stopping the Google-Fitbit Merger: Your Stories Needed!
There’s a dirty secret in the incredible growth of Silicon Valley’s tech giants: it’s a cheat. Historically, US antitrust regulators would be deeply concerned about mergers with major competitors in concentrated markets (“mergers to monopoly”) and acquisitions of small companies to neutralize future competitive threats (“catch and kill”). And while often permitted, vertical integration (“platform monopolies” where the company that owns a key service competes with its own customers) would at least merit close review. But regulators have mostly been giving a pass to mergers and acquisitions in the tech space.
And that’s had huge consequences. To a casual observer, companies like Google—now a division of parent company Alphabet—seem like energetic idea factories, spinning out new divisions at a bewildering rate. But a closer look reveals that Google’s real source of “innovation” is its wallet as much as its brain trust: the company buys other companies more often than most of us buy groceries. Two of Google’s signature products—Search and Gmail—are in-house projects, but the vast majority of its other successes came from snapping up other companies. (And it’s hardly alone in this regard: Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and the other titans of Silicon Valley have all grown primarily through gobbling up other companies, rather than by making their own winning products).
After years of complacency, U.S. financial regulators are finally asking awkward, pointed questions about these mergers.
A poster child for what’s wrong with merger-driven growth is the Google-Fitbit acquisition, which would see the dominant wearable fitness tracker company disappear into the Googleplex, along with its massive trove of sensitive user data. That’s where you come in. We want to ask the Department of Justice to stop this merger, and we want stories from Fitbit owners to help us explain why. For example:
Did your employer force (or “strongly encourage”) you to wear a Fitbit in order to receive company health benefits?
Did you buy a Fitbit because you didn’t want to give Google even more of your data?
Does the Google-Fitbit merger make you feel like there’s no point in opting out of Google data-collection because they’ll just buy any company that has a successful alternative?
If you’ve got an on-point personal story about your Fitbit, we want to hear about it! Contact us at mergerstories@eff.org.
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-24--Apple Can Now Unlock Your Car And Listen To You Washing Your Hands

Among some of the more disturbing features revealed at yesterday ’ s Apple Worldwide Developer Conference keynote were the additions of CarKey – a feature that is going to allow some BMW owners to unlock their car with their phone – and an app on your watch that literally listens to you wash your hands and reminds you if you haven ’ t washed them for long enough .
The company was adamant on Monday that it wants to replace your car keys , despite the fact that the company ’ s long-held goal of making its own EV hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to have surrendered the whole car and is now focusing on something a little bit easier : putting your car keys on your smartphone .
“ They ’ ve been around for over 100 years but they ’ ve become big , bulky and ripe for reimagining , ” am Apple company executive said on stage yesterday .
The company is going to be rolling out the feature for 2021 BMW 5 series vehicles to start and demonstrated the “ feature ” on Monday , showing that even just a door handle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sedan .
Drivers can then place the phone on the car ’ s charging pad and start the vehicle .
But that ’ s not all : BMW owners will be able to unlock their car from long distances using a technology called “ ultra wideband ” and will also be able to share their car ’ s key simply by sending a message to someone else ’ s phone .
Recall , we wrote about a year ago about hackers that have cracked similar key fobs by using cloners and range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was back in 2018 that researchers unveiled a serious flaw in the security of Tesla ’ s vehicles , relating to the Model S keyless entry system , according to Wired .
With little more than standard radio equipment , hackers were able to defeat the car ’ s encryption and wirelessly clone the sedan ’ s key fob in seconds , allowing them to unlock the car and drive away without ever touching the owner ’ s key .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Tesla created a “ new ” version of its key fob that supposedly patched the underlying flaw .
But now , predictably , the same researchers are back and say that they have found yet another vulnerability that even affects the replacement key fobs .
And if that wasn ’ t enough technology in your life , Apple is also installing new Covid-19 software on its Watch that is going to tell people if they don ’ t scrub their hands long enough when they ’ re washing them .
“ Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wash your hands and coach you to make sure you ’ re doing it for as long as you ’ re supposed to , ” a CNBC reporter Tweeted .
The feature includes a hand washing timer that counts down using motion sensors and “ listens to the sound of water on people ’ s hands ” .
Apparently not worried at all about their watch listening to them go about their daily business , there were no shortage of people who praised the idea .
“ Handwashing detection on the Apple Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so incredibly small but can be so incredibly useful and important , ” Tweeted one social media user .
What ’ s next , a watch that watches you when you shower and tells you when you ’ ve missed a spot ?
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .

By Tyler Durden
Among some of the more disturbing features revealed at yesterday’s Apple Worldwide Developer Conference keynote were the additions of CarKey – a feature that is going to allow some BMW owners to unlock their car with their phone – and an app on your watch that literally listens to you wash your hands and reminds you if you haven’t washed them for long enough.
The company was adamant on Monday that it wants to replace your car keys, despite the fact that the company’s long-held goal of making its own EV hasn’t materialized. Instead, it appears to have surrendered the whole car and is now focusing on something a little bit easier: putting your car keys on your smartphone.
“They’ve been around for over 100 years but they’ve become big, bulky and ripe for reimagining,” am Apple company executive said on stage yesterday.
The company is going to be rolling out the feature for 2021 BMW 5 series vehicles to start and demonstrated the “feature” on Monday, showing that even just a door handle top with an iPhone can now unlock a sedan. Drivers can then place the phone on the car’s charging pad and start the vehicle.
But that’s not all: BMW owners will be able to unlock their car from long distances using a technology called “ultra wideband” and will also be able to share their car’s key simply by sending a message to someone else’s phone.
Recall, we wrote about a year ago about hackers that have cracked similar key fobs by using cloners and range extenders to steal vehicles, notably Teslas.
It was back in 2018 that researchers unveiled a serious flaw in the security of Tesla’s vehicles, relating to the Model S keyless entry system, according to Wired. With little more than standard radio equipment, hackers were able to defeat the car’s encryption and wirelessly clone the sedan’s key fob in seconds, allowing them to unlock the car and drive away without ever touching the owner’s key.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
In response to this report, Tesla created a “new” version of its key fob that supposedly patched the underlying flaw. But now, predictably, the same researchers are back and say that they have found yet another vulnerability that even affects the replacement key fobs.
And if that wasn’t enough technology in your life, Apple is also installing new Covid-19 software on its Watch that is going to tell people if they don’t scrub their hands long enough when they’re washing them.
“Your Apple Watch can sense how long you wash your hands and coach you to make sure you’re doing it for as long as you’re supposed to,” a CNBC reporter Tweeted. The feature includes a hand washing timer that counts down using motion sensors and “listens to the sound of water on people’s hands”.
Apparently not worried at all about their watch listening to them go about their daily business, there were no shortage of people who praised the idea. “Handwashing detection on the Apple Watch is one of those things that seem so incredibly small but can be so incredibly useful and important,” Tweeted one social media user.
What’s next, a watch that watches you when you shower and tells you when you’ve missed a spot?
Source: Zerohedge
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-24--Rutherford Institute Warns Tech Giants: Attempts to Censor Unpopular Viewpoints Online Run Afoul of

Rutherford Institute Warns Tech Giants: Attempts to Censor Unpopular Viewpoints Online Run Afoul of First Amendment

MENLO PARK , Calif. — Denouncing attempts by big tech companies and social media platforms to silence controversial , provocative and/or politically unpopular viewpoints , The Rutherford Institute has warned that any move to de-platform , shadowban , and demonetize users based on their viewpoints will subject private corporations working in conjunction with the U.S. government to the strictures of the First Amendment .
In recent months , Google , Facebook , YouTube and other social media companies have taken steps to crack down on content that disputes accepted views on COVID-19 ; that could be considered “ fake ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be perceived as promoting “ hatred , intolerance , violence or discrimination.
” The sites targeted for censorship include those of David Icke for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the COVID-19 pandemic ; Zero Hedge for not blocking reader comments that violates Google ’ s policies on race ; and The Federalist , also for allegedly racist remarks posted in its comments section .
“ What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning , which does away with controversial ideas and the people who espouse them , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America : The War on the American People .
“ This form of technofascism—large technology corporations with control over information colluding with governments to stifle forms of dissent that challenge an elitist status quo—is a slippery slope that starts with censoring so-called illegitimate ideas and ends by silencing truth.
” Warning that private corporations are opening themselves up to First Amendment lawsuits by deactivating social media forums at the bidding of the U.S. government in order to silence views of which the government might disapprove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook reverse its decision to deactivate the accounts of author David Icke and Ickonic Enterprises , which serves as an uncensored platform for news and information that provides a counterpoint to the curated news and information disseminated by the mainstream corporate media , acting at times as a mouthpiece for government agencies .
On May 1 , 2020 , Facebook deactivated Ickonic Enterprises ’ Facebook account , as well as those of Icke , “ for going against the Facebook Community Standards on health misinformation that could cause physical harm.
” Around that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also deleted the accounts of Ickonic and Icke .
MailChimp , an email marketing service , disabled their accounts , asserting violation of its terms of use .
Vimeo , a video platform , removed Ickonic ’ s account , asserting a violation of a rule forbidding content that is false or promotes hoaxes .
YouTube , without warning , also deactivated Icke ’ s account and deleted his channel because of policies “ prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of COVID-19.
” This mass de-platforming occurred right after Icke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various social media channels , questioned the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the COVID-19 pandemic , which has confounded the science and medical community .
Icke had also challenged the authoritarian nature of the international community ’ s governmental response to managing the pandemic .
In coming to the defense of Icke ’ s First Amendment rights , Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that Facebook conspired with the U.S. government and other tech companies to violate Icke ’ s rights under the First Amendment , the U.N .
Declaration of Human Rights and U.S. antitrust laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil liberties organization , provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms .
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of .
Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead , The Rutherford Institute has become one of the nation ’ s leading advocates of civil liberties and human rights , litigating in the courts and educating the public on a wide spectrum of issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and around the world .
The Institute ’ s mission is twofold : to provide legal services in the defense of civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms .
The Institute provides its legal services at no charge to those whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated .
In Battlefield America : The War on the American People , the follow-up to his award-winning book A Government of Wolves : The Emerging American Police State , constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead paints a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with itself and on the verge of undermining and destroying the basic freedoms guaranteed to all citizens in the Constitution .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By The Rutherford Institute
The Rutherford Institute’s letter to Facebook
MENLO PARK, Calif. — Denouncing attempts by big tech companies and social media platforms to silence controversial, provocative and/or politically unpopular viewpoints, The Rutherford Institute has warned that any move to de-platform, shadowban, and demonetize users based on their viewpoints will subject private corporations working in conjunction with the U.S. government to the strictures of the First Amendment. In recent months, Google, Facebook, YouTube and other social media companies have taken steps to crack down on content that disputes accepted views on COVID-19; that could be considered “fake” news by establishment sources; or that could be perceived as promoting “hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination.” The sites targeted for censorship include those of David Icke for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the COVID-19 pandemic; Zero Hedge for not blocking reader comments that violates Google’s policies on race; and The Federalist, also for allegedly racist remarks posted in its comments section.
“What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning, which does away with controversial ideas and the people who espouse them,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This form of technofascism—large technology corporations with control over information colluding with governments to stifle forms of dissent that challenge an elitist status quo—is a slippery slope that starts with censoring so-called illegitimate ideas and ends by silencing truth.”
Warning that private corporations are opening themselves up to First Amendment lawsuits by deactivating social media forums at the bidding of the U.S. government in order to silence views of which the government might disapprove, The Rutherford Institute is demanding that Facebook reverse its decision to deactivate the accounts of author David Icke and Ickonic Enterprises, which serves as an uncensored platform for news and information that provides a counterpoint to the curated news and information disseminated by the mainstream corporate media, acting at times as a mouthpiece for government agencies. On May 1, 2020, Facebook deactivated Ickonic Enterprises’ Facebook account, as well as those of Icke, “for going against the Facebook Community Standards on health misinformation that could cause physical harm.” Around that time, YouTube, Vimeo and MailChimp also deleted the accounts of Ickonic and Icke. MailChimp, an email marketing service, disabled their accounts, asserting violation of its terms of use. Vimeo, a video platform, removed Ickonic’s account, asserting a violation of a rule forbidding content that is false or promotes hoaxes. YouTube, without warning, also deactivated Icke’s account and deleted his channel because of policies “prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of COVID-19.” This mass de-platforming occurred right after Icke, publicly and on Ickonic’s various social media channels, questioned the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, which has confounded the science and medical community. Icke had also challenged the authoritarian nature of the international community’s governmental response to managing the pandemic. In coming to the defense of Icke’s First Amendment rights, Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that Facebook conspired with the U.S. government and other tech companies to violate Icke’s rights under the First Amendment, the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and U.S. antitrust laws.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
Source: Truth Comes to Light
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute .
Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute has become one of the nation’s leading advocates of civil liberties and human rights, litigating in the courts and educating the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting individual freedom in the United States and around the world.
The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms. The Institute provides its legal services at no charge to those whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated.
In Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the follow-up to his award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead paints a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself and on the verge of undermining and destroying the basic freedoms guaranteed to all citizens in the Constitution.
www.rutherford.org
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-24--Julian Assange Charged In Superseding Indictment By DOJ

A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment today charging WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with offenses that relate to Assange ’ s alleged role in “ one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States ” , according to a DOJ statement .
The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019 .
It does , however , broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged .
According to the charging document , Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks .
In addition , the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified Department of Defense computer .
Some more details from the indictment : Since the early days of WikiLeaks , Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a “ famous teenage hacker in Australia ” and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks .
In 2009 , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting “ a small vulnerability ” inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress , and then asserted that “ [ t ] his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking.
” In 2010 , Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country .
In 2012 , Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec ( who by then was cooperating with the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targets for LulzSec to hack .
With respect to one target , Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for ( and provide to WikiLeaks ) mail and documents , databases and pdfs .
In another communication , Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA , NSA , or the New York Times .
WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “ Anonymous ” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker .
According to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spam that victim company again .
If convicted , Assange faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on each count except for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion , for which he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .

By Tyler Durden
A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment today charging WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in “one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States”, according to a DOJ statement.
The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019. It does, however, broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged.
According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks. In addition, the broadened hacking conspiracy continues to allege that Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified Department of Defense computer.
Some more details from the indictment:
Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a “famous teenage hacker in Australia” and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks. In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting “a small vulnerability” inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, and then asserted that “[t]his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking.” In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an “Anonymous” and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again.
If convicted, Assange faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on each count except for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, for which he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
Read full document at Zerohedge HERE.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.