February 9th, 2018
Russian security officers have arrested several scientists working at a top-secret Russian nuclear warhead facility for allegedly mining crypto-currencies.
The suspects had tried to use one of Russia’s most powerful supercomputers to mine Bitcoins, media reports say.
The Federal Nuclear Centre in Sarov, western Russia, is a restricted area.
The centre’s press service said: “There has been an unsanctioned attempt to use computer facilities for private purposes including so-called mining.”
The supercomputer was not supposed to be connected to the internet – to prevent intrusion – and once the scientists attempted to do so, the nuclear centre’s security department was alerted. They were handed over to the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Russian news service Mash says.
“As far as we are aware, a criminal case has been launched against them,” the press service told Interfax news agency.
<!– AD CAN GO HERE
END: AD CAN GO HERE –>
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Source Article from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=52323
January 19th, 2018
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he signed into law a bill renewing the National Security Agencyâ€™s warrantless internet surveillance program, sealing a defeat for digital privacy advocates.
<!– AD CAN GO HERE
END: AD CAN GO HERE –>
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Source Article from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=52227
Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right”.
Comment: …and the ‘alt-center’, and the ‘alt-left’… pretty much most people online actually.
Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, said Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse“. Having to calling in security specialists was a “terrible indictment of the times we live in“, he said.
Comment: Indeed, the degree of snowflakery it reveals in some is astronomical.
Newman interviewed the psychologist, Jordan Peterson, about gender on Tuesday. A video of the full 30-minute interview has been watched more than 1.6m times on the Channel 4 News YouTube page and has attracted more than 36,000 comments.
Comment: Over 2 million views now!
Peterson rose to prominence in 2016 when he released a video lecture series in which he said that his right to free speech meant he would not use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender students at the University of Toronto. He was in the UK promoting a new book called 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
The combative Channel 4 interview led to praise for Peterson and criticism for Newman on some right-leaning sites. James Delingpole, a Breitbart columnist, said the interview marked a “pivotal victory in the culture wars” and that the “weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly exposed“. Douglas Murray in the Spectator said: “I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.”
Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter. There is no suggestion that Peterson, Delingpole or Murray are behind the threats or instigated them.
Comment: Really, where? Who said what, exactly? Evidence?
De Pear said on Twitter on Friday:
“Our Channel 4 News on-screen journalists expect to be held to account for their journalism but the level of vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat to Cathy Newman is an unacceptable response to a robust and engaging debate with Jordan Peterson.
“Such is the scale of threat, we are having to get security specialists in to carry out an analysis. I will not hesitate to get the police involved if necessary. What a terrible indictment of the times we live in.”
Comment: That is the only threat at work here – to get the police going after people criticizing Newman. If there was really a threat to her, they’d have already gone straight to the police. But they didn’t; they hired ‘private security’, who will happily report whatever C4 and Newman want them to report because they are being paid to do so.
Newman retweeted De Pear’s posts. In response to Murray’s column – in which he said Newman should get Channel 4 to remove the video from the internet because of how “catastrophic” it was – she said earlier in the week:
“Always grateful for advice from Douglas Murray but I won’t be suing or taking out a super-injunction. I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with Jordan Peterson as did hundreds of thousands of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech. Stay tuned Douglas.”
Comment: So Newman is a feminist ideologue. Which just makes JP’s victory all the sweeter.
Clever trolling from Murray too, baiting her and C4 to remove the video!
Channel 4 News said:
“Following her interview with psychology professor Jordan Peterson broadcast earlier this week, our presenter Cathy Newman has been the target of unwarranted and unacceptable misogynistic abuse and threats.
“As journalists in the public eye, our presenters expect criticism, but we will not tolerate this level of abuse towards our staff. We have taken immediate steps to ensure Cathy’s safety and security and continue to offer her our full support on this matter.”
Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/374686-As-Internet-cheers-Jordan-Petersons-slaying-of-British-feminist-TV-presenter-her-employer-hires-private-security-threatens-to-go-to-police-because-abuse
Fighting fake news is the new pretext given by the ruling cabal in many nations to enact censorship via the back door. Amid the rallying cries of “We must fight fake news!” both France (under would-be dictator Macron) and now Brazil are attempting to pass legislation to ban political content on the web that the government deems to be fake news. There is a theme to this, as it follows on from many acts of censorship in 2016 and 2017. Whether it’s Twitter shadow-banning, Facebook rolling our fake news checkers or deleting entire accounts, YouTube embarking upon soft censorship through forced sign-ins or hard censorship by deleting entire channels, Google’s search engine hiding websites by de-ranking them, or – worst of all – Google demonetizing content and sites not to its liking, censorship is clearly getting worse — and it’s threatening to overtake a free and open internet.
Censorship — In the Name of Fighting ‘Fake News’
The big corporations of the internet have shown their true colors on the issue of censorship vs. free speech. Amazon has been caught banning certain books from being sold on its platform, e.g. in 2015 it decided to ban Jim Fetzer’s book No One Died at Sandy Hook, which exposed the false flag mass shooting at Sandy Hook. In reaction to the whole “Russia meddling in the US election” saga, which is itself fake news and a tempest in a teapot, Facebook decided to get tough and enlist the help of international fact checkers to do your thinking for you and decide for you what is real news and what is fake news. Funnily enough, it was recently reported that the rollout didn’t go so well, so for the time being Facebook has canned the idea because it was making things worse! Facebook has also been caught banning posts on certain topics (e.g. NaturalNews.com’s posts on gun control) or even deleting entire accounts of users it didn’t like (as recently happened with David Icke, whose 700,000+ follower account just got reinstated after being down for 6 days due to an “error” – yeah right).
Twitter is no stranger to censorship either, with its employees boasting of shadow banning (aka stealth banning, ghost banning, or comment ghosting), meaning that Twitter block users or their content from an online community without the users realizing they have been banned. At one point Google publicly floated the idea of de-ranking and de-listing certain sites (they mentioned Russian sites RT and Sputnik), but they later did a U-turn and claimed they would not be doing that. Obviously, it is easily within their power to tamper with algorithms to include or exclude anything they want, and virtually no one would ever know the search results were being skewed due to Google’s own ideological bias. Google was caught doing this in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US presidential elections. Indeed, after the firing of ex-Google employee James Damore (who has now initiated a class action lawsuit due to his dismissal), we have to wonder whether bias isn’t already coded into Google’s algorithms just as a result of their orthodoxy and culture (ie. left-wing and promoting diversity at all costs). Recently, Breitbart reported that Google’s fact-checking almost exclusively targets conservative or right wing media.
It’s not just Google itself. Google-owned YouTube has been embarking on campaigns of both soft censorship and hard censorship. In many ways, soft censorship is more insidious, because then the company can claim plausible deniability and refuse to admit they are even engaged in censorship. In this case, soft censorship refers to when YouTube technically allows people to watch a video, but makes it difficult by putting barriers in the way, e.g. by claiming the content is “age-restricted” (forcing you to open an account, give your details to YouTube and prove that you are of mature age) or using other ways to force you to sign in before being allowed to watch the video. The adpocalypse of 2017, as it was called, was perhaps closer to hard censorship, and involved a sweeping demonetization of videos due to “inappropriate content” for advertisers. Finally, YouTube has actually deleted entire channels on occasion, such as the deletion of Activist Post’s account last year in 2017.
It’s Not Just Fighting Fake News; Censorship Also Thrives under the Pretexts of Fighting ‘Terrorism’ and ‘Hate Speech’, and Being ‘Politically Correct’…
Fighting fake news gives would-be tyrants a great excuse to censor, however free speech is also being eroded by the equally vague and nebulous concepts of terrorism and hate speech. The term fake news rose to prominence right around the time that Donald Trump was elected in November 2016, yet there is hardly a clear and widely-agreed upon definition for the phrase. It often gets used by people who seek to criticize information they don’t like, dismiss allegations against them, or even to defend themselves when faced with an unflattering report about themselves. As Glenn Greenwald writes:
Yet, as many have long been warning, few people, if any, ever bothered to define what the term [fake news] actually means. As a result, it’s incredibly vague, shifting, and devoid of consistent meaning. Do any news articles that contain false, significant assertions qualify? Is there some intent requirement, and if so, what is it and how is determined (does recklessness qualify)? Can large mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Globo be guilty of publishing “fake news” and thus subject to this censorship, or is it — as one expects — reserved only for small, independent blogs and outlets that lack a powerful corporate presence?
Ill-defined terms that become popularized in political discourse are, by definition, terms of propaganda rather than reliable, meaningful indicators of problems. And invariably, they wreak all kinds of predictable havoc and inevitably give rise to abuses of power. More than anything else, such terms — which, by design, mean whatever the powerful groups wielding them want them to mean — so often produce arbitrary censorship in the name of combatting them. Just consider two similarly ill-defined but popular propagandistic terms — “terrorism” and “hate speech” — which have been appropriated by governments all over the world to justify the most extreme, repressive powers.
The fake war on terror has given the West – especially the US and UK – lots of mileage to suppress its own citizens. Egypt and Saudi Arabia also jumped in on the act with censorship laws based on terrorism. As for hate speech, it has been used to silence all sorts of opinions including those opposing Zionism and Israel’s continuous theft and murder against the Palestinians – because if you criticize Israel then you must be anti-semitic, right (even though true Judaism and Zionism are mutually exclusive)?
Political correctness is nothing but censorship at the end of the day. It is intolerance disguised as tolerance. As George Carlin said, it’s fascism pretending to be manners. There is no right “not to be offended.” It is becoming more and more ludicrous as each year passes, with groups making lists of approved and non-approved terms and insisting that people using the non-approved, “politically incorrect” terms are therefore committing micro-aggressions against the people who hear them. How much more are we going to take before our range of “permissible” thought has been utterly diminished?
When you put all these nebulous but lethal terms together – national security, war on terror, terrorism, hate speech and fake news – it pretty much allows the government to do anything it wants to you, anytime, anywhere, including searching you, robbing you, jailing you and killing you!
Watch out anytime politicians invent a new talking point term which is vague and indefinable. That vagueness can be used against you. Fighting fake news is a joke. People are people. As long as humans have had free will and the ability to speak or write, there has always been the possibility of people lying, omitting, distorting or making false claims. It’s part of being alive to develop your discernment and work out what is true or false. Never allow government to pretend it can do this, for the result will always be that the ruling class filters out what its doesn’t want you to know out of self-interest and a desire for more power and control.
For more stories like these, visit The Common Sense Show
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/_lggo1fqv7w/
Calls are increasing for Big Social platforms like Google, Facebook, and Twitter to be regulated like public utilities given their immense influence over what people see, read, hear and ultimately think, as well as how they spend their money.
This online dominance has similarly brought forth the related issue of monopolistic control.
In the U.S., it is not in itself illegal to have monopoly power – when one company controls a market for a specific good. It is only illegal to try to acquire or maintain monopoly power in a way that excludes or hinders competitors – and is thus bad for consumers.
UTNews noted that Facebook and Google currently control about 70 percent of all online advertising. When asked if this could draw scrutiny from federal antitrust regulators, the professor had this to say.
If advertisers simply prefer placing ads on Facebook and Google to placing them on news websites, they are free to do so. What is a problem is using a position of market dominance to reduce competition either by excluding or cooperating with rivals. For example, if Facebook and Google got together and agreed on the prices they would charge advertisers, that would be illegal price fixing.
Health Ranger Mike Adams, founding editor of Natural News, has previously called for powerful Silicon Valley tech giants which abide by a leftist, progressive ideology to be regulated through a content neutrality law that would prevent them “from selectively silencing websites and video channels they don’t like for purely political reasons.”
A New York Times Op-Ed published in April seemed to agree with the Health Ranger, suggesting that the government may need to regulate these Internet giants given their gatekeeping sway over web traffic and e-commerce.
We are going to have to decide fairly soon whether Google, Facebook and Amazon are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated, or whether we allow the status quo to continue, pretending that unfettered monoliths don’t inflict damage on our privacy and democracy.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who led the successful effort to repeal net neutrality rules, has called out the big social media networks for blocking content that they don’t like while at the same time pushing for regulation of Internet service providers under the guise of advocacy for a free and open Internet.
Before he left his job as White House chief strategist for President Trump, Breitbart News executive chairman Steve Bannon supposedly floated the idea of regulating Google and Facebook along the lines of public utilities, according to The Intercept, which clarified what that might mean.
Regulating a company as a utility does not mean that the government controls it, but rather that it is much more tightly regulated in what it is able to do and prices it is able to charge. And it doesn’t mean every element of the company would be regulated in that way. For Google… it may only be the search function that would be regulated like a utility.
As Natural News readers are well aware, Google has been suspected of manipulating search results for various reasons, political or otherwise, and its YouTube subsidiary also been accused of arbitrarily demonetizing the channels of legitimate conservative and libertarian commentators as a form of economic censorship. Twitter has similarly been accused of suspending or shadow banning Trump supporters and others as well as throttling tweets that don’t fit within a politically correct perspective. And Facebook has come under scrutiny for various practices. Last year, for example, Facebook implemented revamped curation procedures after it appeared to be censoring conservative-oriented news from its trending topics feed. (Related: Read more about online censorship at NewsCartels.com.)
Recall that Google fired software engineer James Damore for writing a 10-page essay from a centrist standpoint challenging the tech giant’s far left, diversity-at-all-costs culture, a progressive agenda that simultaneously rejects intellectual diversity. This is the same organization that creates the search algorithms upon which almost every Internet user relies.
Taken collectively, alleged anti-competitive methods by the social network giants may make some form of regulation from an anti-trust standpoint appropriate, but any form of oversight would have to be carefully crafted to avoid any infringement on the First Amendment, among other legal implications.
Parenthetically, the Health Ranger developed GoodGopher.com (which, unlike Google, doesn’t spy on the user), providing uncensored search results from thousands of independent media websites.
As control of the internet and regulation of cryptocurrency dominate the news cycle, a team led by former Space-X Vice President Jim Cantrell, and his son Colin, is planning to innovate both of these technologies in a way that decentralizes and protects them forever.
In 2002, Cantrell left Space-X to pursue multiple other successful projects in the space exploration industry. Most recently, he founded Vector Space Systems with the goal of making commercial space ventures more realistic and affordable. At the centerpiece of Vector’s vision is a plan to send cube satellites into space that will power a decentralized internet and blockchain that governments or traditional competitors can’t take down.
According to a press release published this week:
“Vector, a nanosatellite launch company comprised of new-space and enterprise software industry veterans from SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Sea Launch and VMware, today announced a partnership with Nexus to host its decentralized cryptocurrency in space using Vector’s GalacticSky Software-Defined Satellite platform. Nexus will be the first company to deploy a cryptocurrency on a satellite orbiting the earth. This partnership between Vector and Nexus highlights the unique use cases for GalacticSky’s technology and further proves the versatility of the platform. Additionally, the partnership allows future Vector customers to pay for launches using Nexus’ cryptocurrency, NXS.”
The statement noted that, “By hosting NXS in space via GalacticSky, Nexus is no longer tied to a nation-state and can create the backbone for a more decentralized financial ecosystem.”
As Nexus utilizes a satellite virtualization platform through GalacticSky, it can then “distribute its blockchain across multiple satellites, providing it enhanced reliability and performance.” By using “secure cryptocurrency” and a “decentralized peer-to-peer network,” Nexus will grant “greater freedom and transactional transparency for global access to financial services.”
The satellites will also integrate with mesh networks on the ground to create a truly free and decentralized internet. Boiling it down to the most simple terms for comparison, mesh networks operate by combining information from various nodes in a system much in the same way that BitTorrent or blockchain technology does.
The team promises that these services will be financially accessible to the average person, and it has even been speculated that people could get paid in cryptocurrency to run nodes on the network.
In the press release, Colin Cantrell explained the importance of Nexus, saying that:
“With Bitcoin’s valuation at an all-time high, people are beginning to accept cryptocurrency as a real form of payment, but there are still problems with storage and ownership. The capabilities provided by the GalacticSky platform, combined with the flexibility of Vector’s launch model, bring us one step closer to accomplishing our mission of providing the world with a decentralized currency that can be accessed virtually anywhere, anytime.
Over the last year, we’ve made many advancements in order to solidify our standing as a leading nanosatellite launch company. ‘Housing Nexus’ cryptocurrency on our GalacticSky platform not only validates our proof of concept but demonstrates how prolific this opportunity is for startups looking to innovate in space without the need to build their own satellite.”
The Nexus team also stands out because their whole project and vision is deeply motivated by a desire to free the earth from the centralized systems that are bringing this planet to a breaking point.
This past summer, Nexus hosted a conference where they invited a wide range of freedom fighters to speak about cryptocurrency and its implications in the realm of politics, activism, social entrepreneurship. The conference saw prestigious speakers like G Edward Griffin, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura and Judge Napolitano, as well as newer minds in the movement such as my co-author Derrick Broze or my good friend Sterlin Luxan, communications ambassador for Bitcoin.com. They even invited some of the staunchest critics of cryptocurrency, like Peter Schiff, to make their cases against the emerging technology.
Nexus is currently trading on major exchanges for just under $4, with a current market cap of $209,230,889 at time of publishing.