Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

With Census Decision, Trump’s GOP Falters in March Toward White Minority Rule

The Supreme Court's failure to address the racist underpinnings of the census citizenship question — even while blocking it — is concerning.

The post With Census Decision, Trump’s GOP Falters in March Toward White Minority Rule appeared first on The Intercept.

Josh Gottheimer Warned Democratic Leaders He Had Votes to Block Bill Mandating Better Conditions for Children in Detention

The bill passed by Congress “does nothing to hold a rogue agency accountable for its cruelty,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

The post Josh Gottheimer Warned Democratic Leaders He Had Votes to Block Bill Mandating Better Conditions for Children in Detention appeared first on The Intercept.

NYPD Added Nearly 2,500 New People to Its Gang Database in the Last Year

The secret gang database maintained by New York police consists almost entirely of brown and black people.

The post NYPD Added Nearly 2,500 New People to Its Gang Database in the Last Year appeared first on The Intercept.

The Democratic Debates Showcased the Most Dangerous Form of Climate Denial

An ongoing forest fire has ravaged more than 42,000 acres of the Florida Everglades. Forest fires are a natural occurrence, but they are expected to get worse as climate change lengthens the fire season and reduces rainfall. About 40 miles south of the blaze is Miami, a coastal city of half a million resting on a foundation of porous limestone, which floods on sunny days and could be partly underwater by 2045.

The first Democratic Primary Debates of the 2020 election unfolded in Miami amid this climate chaos. Climate change will transform the future in unforeseeably ways. But this transformation is already happening all around us. The next decade is the time to embark on a just transition to climate safety: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says that we need to cut global carbon emissions in half in this timeframe to have any hope of staving off a climate crisis that would existentially threaten human society. Alarmingly, most Democratic candidates have made it clear that they have little understanding of the magnitude of the threat and the response required to meet it. And moderators curated debates devoid of the urgency this moment demands.

On Wednesday, the first debate devoted a total of seven minutes to the existential threat of global warming. The moderators evidenced paltry knowled­ge of the subject: Chuck Todd confused the key terms “mitigation” (reducing emissions) and “adaptation” (increasing resiliency), and echoed right-wing talking points about the “cost” of addressing climate change. None of the 10 candidates mentioned the Green New Deal. On Thursday, it was eight minutes spent on climate, and three candidates referred briefly to the Green New Deal. One of them was John Hickenloper, who cited it as an example of why candidates shouldn’t identify as socialists.

Of course, it’s far more important to look at what candidates actually do beyond the debate spotlight. Jay Inslee stands out for convincingly campaigning on climate change as his number-one priority. His plans for sector-by-sector decarbonization and phasing out the fossil fuel industry are impressively detailed—and even suggest using state power to decommission oil, gas and coal assets.

Elizabeth Warren has multiple plans for that, and aspects of them, like the call for a concerted industrial policy and mass job creation, are good. But a worrying thread of “economic patriotism” unites those plans: She sees the global market for green technology as a way for the U.S. to reassert its manufacturing prowess, a quest for dominance that would undermine global cooperation.

At last night’s debate, Todd did a slightly better job presenting his climate question, framing climate change as a “major concern for voters” and asking for policy details. But candidates’ responses left much to be desired.

Kamala Harris referred to the “climate crisis” as an “existential threat” and voiced support for a Green New Deal, but quickly pivoted to other supposed threats—Trump, King Jong Un, and Putin—thus undercutting the punch of her initially bold statement.

Joe Biden waxed nostalgic about the Obama administration’s achievements, emphasized the need for electric-vehicle-recharging stations, and discussed jobs and the Paris Accord before pointing the finger at the “85 percent of the world makes up the rest” of carbon emissions.

Hickenloper, a man who once claimed he drank fracking fluid to prove it was harmless, said working with the oil and gas industry will help address climate change. But those industries are to blame both for climate change and for fostering the dangerous negligence of our political system; they must be dismantled and their executives prosecuted.

Pete Buttigieg called for “aggressive and ambitious measures.” His first example? A “carbon tax and dividend”—the posterchild for the gradual, technocratic, market-oriented proposals that have failed to gain political traction or avert climate chaos.

Of the 20, only Bernie Sanders seemed to grasp—and relish—the need to confront the fossil fuel industry, and to divert the “trillion and a half dollars” we spend “on weapons of destruction” to transform our energy systems. It’s less the dollar amount that sets him apart, and more the way he links international cooperation and U.S. demilitarization—and doesn’t shy away from naming climate change as our “common enemy.” Yet he didn’t mention the Green New Deal, even though it is an element of his campaign platform.

Weeks earlier, Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, rejected calls for a debate centered on the climate emergency. His reasons, which framed the climate crisis as one narrow “issue” among many others and concern-trolled about breaking the previously-devised rules governing debate procedure, were cringeworthy. He also threatened any candidate who participates in a unsanctioned debate with exclusion from the official ones.

By doing so, he offered an on-the-nose illustration of how the political establishment is aiding and abetting the crimes of fossil capital. Perhaps Democratic Party elites believe that ignoring climate change is somehow necessary to winning over some slice of voters against Trump next November. But they're wrong on the politics: People know that action is necessary. According to recent polls commissioned by Data for Progress, 64% of registered Democratic voters want a climate debate and 71% support a Green New Deal.

On Tuesday, hundreds of Sunrise Movement activists descended the DNC headquarters, demanding a climate debate. As of Thursday, dozens remained, having camped out overnight. Their persistence matches the depth of the crisis. As Sunrise co-founder Varshini Prakash said in a statement released Tuesday, “Business as usual is a death sentence.”

The most dangerous form of climate denial is no longer Senator Jim Inhofe throwing a snowball on the Senate floor to prove that global warming isn’t real, or Trump calling climate change a Chinese hoax. It’s liberal and centrist politicians who should know better appealing to “bipartisan consensus,” immediately shifting the blame to other countries when the U.S. has among the highest per-capita emissions in the world, or asking, “How will we pay for it?”

Moderators shouldn't wait roughly an hour and 19 minutes, as they did at last night's debate, to ask the first question explicitly about climate change—and Democratic candidates shouldn't wait for them to do so either. Climate change shapes every other political question. It does not belong on a laundry list of topics, because we can’t build a better world without a livable planet.

California Set to Ban Hair Discrimination

This is the kind of thing that I suppose Fox News will mock someday, but it’s a good idea: The CROWN Act, which passed the state Senate in April, was approved by the state Assembly on Thursday. It would outlaw policies that punish black employees and students for their hairstyles. Supporters say the bill’s acronym […]

Bernie Sanders Said Medicare for All Would Protect Abortion. Here’s Why.

Last night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was asked on the Democratic presidential debate stage how he would protect abortion rights in the face of unprecedented attacks on the procedure and the possibility that Roe v. Wade might be overturned. Sanders gave a surprising response: He’d fight back against restrictions on abortion with his signature legislation, Medicare […]

Please STOP, stop, stop using #Google #reCaptcha on your websites!
You are giving away your visitors' #privacy and they cannot even opt-out and avoid it if they want to reach your contents.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90369697/googles-new-recaptcha-has-a-dark-side
#privacyMatters #webdevelopment

Nextcloud announces a new collaborative rich text editor called Nextcloud Text, not "a replacement to a full office suite, but rather a distraction-free, focused way of writing rich-text documents alone or together with others."
https://cloud.nextcloud.com/s/4Bi8CMtKLDe2otY

Always fun to read through this site. https://thehackernews.com/2019/06/police-raid-omnirat-developer.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheHackersNews+%28The+Hackers+News+-+Cyber+Security+Blog%29&_m=3n.009a.2017.sb0ao0e4pk.192e

The “backfire effect” is mostly a myth, a broad look at the research suggests » Nieman Journalism Lab https://prismo.xyz/posts/ea38bd6d-c7a0-4145-b8bf-5c6f4e5222aa

California: Stop Face Surveillance on Police Body-Worn Cameras

Communities called for police officers to wear cameras with the hope that doing so would improve police accountability, not further mass surveillance. But today, we stand at a crossroads. Face recognition technology is now capable of being interfaced with body-worn cameras in real-time—a development that has grave implications for privacy, free speech, and racial justice.

Take Action

California: No Face Recognition on Body-Worn Cameras

That is why we have joined a coalition of civil rights and civil liberties organizations to support A.B. 1215, authored by California Assemblymember Phil Ting. This bill would prohibit the use of face recognition, or other forms of biometric technology, on a camera worn or carried by a police officer.

Ting’s bill, by targeting a particularly harmful application of face surveillance, is crucial not only to curbing mass surveillance, but also to facilitating better relationships between police officers and the communities they serve. As EFF activist Nathan Sheard told the California Assembly last month, using face recognition technology “in connection with police body cameras would force Californians to decide between actively avoiding interaction and cooperation with law enforcement, or having their images collected, analyzed, and stored as perpetual candidates for suspicion.”

%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FjU_m47V-kYY%3Fautoplay%3D1%22%20allow%3D%22accelerometer%3B%20autoplay%3B%20encrypted-media%3B%20gyroscope%3B%20picture-in-picture%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube.com

The Assembly passed the bill with a 45-17 vote on May 9, and it is now before the Senate.

Bans on government use of face surveillance have gathered support and momentum across the country. San Francisco in May banned city use of face surveillance. This month, Oakland, Calif. and Somerville, Mass. have both taken crucial steps toward adopting similar bans, with both measures now headed for full city council votes. Massachusetts is also considering a statewide moratorium on government use of face surveillance.

Meanwhile, law enforcement face recognition has come under heavy criticism at the federal level by the House Oversight Committee and the Government Accountability Office.

A.B. 1215 reflects widespread concern over face surveillance. Please urge your lawmakers to support this bill. We should not transform a tool intended to improve police accountability into a mass biometric surveillance network.

Sort of inspired by the results of a poll @fribbledom did regarding Free Software donations and a comment I made about an easy way to keep yourself on track with that, I started this simple project.

https://fosscan.org

I have to #dogfood the project so including a pic of my own (rapidly filling) #FOSScan

Victory: California Orders State Audit of Automated License Plate Readers

A California legislative committee today voted to direct the State Auditor to launch a probe into the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) by law enforcement agencies. The audit will include the first comprehensive statewide survey of which agencies use this surveillance technology and what vendors they use. It will also include a deeper audit into four specific jurisdictions across the state. 

ALPRs are camera systems that scan the license plates of vehicles in order to track people in real-time and create search databases of drivers’ historical travel patterns. As a mass surveillance technology, ALPR captures information on every driver, regardless of whether their vehicle is under suspicion. 

In 2015, EFF supported legislation—S.B. 34—to require agencies to implement policies that protect civil liberties and privacy, and to maintain a detailed log of every time someone accesses ALPR data. In the years since, EFF has filed hundreds of public records requests and analyzed scores of policies only to discover that many agencies are either ignoring the law altogether or failing to follow some of its provisions. Often EFF’s research faces hurdles because agencies signed non-disclosure agreements with the primary vendor of the technology, Vigilant Solutions. 

EFF assisted Sen. Wiener in drafting the audit request in order to obtain an impartial review of the spread of ALPRs and to assess whether agencies are complying with S.B. 34. In addition to circulating a statewide questionnaire, the auditor will conduct investigations into the Fresno Police Department, Sacramento County Sheriff and Department of Human Assistance, the Los Angeles Police Department, and the Marin County Sheriff/San Rafael Police Department (these north Bay Area jurisdictions share an ALPR system). 

California State Auditor Elaine Howle testified that the audit would take 2,800 hours of staff time and estimated that it will be completed in 7 months.

Last year, EFF collected records from 60 agencies in California: together they accounted for more than 1.1 billion license plate scans in 2017-2018 alone. Only about 0.1% were flagged as relevant to an investigation at the time they were collected. The ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit against ICE to obtain records about ALPR and found that immigration authorities routinely gained access to data collected by agencies in California. 

The audit is especially timely in light of news that U.S. Customs and Border Protections’ license plate vendor was breached, resulting in massive amounts of confidential records being leaked onto the Internet. While CBP’s system is outside the scope of the audit, it serves as a warning of how ALPR systems not only threaten privacy, but also create cybersecurity risks. 

A previous audit of the state’s gang databases found the systems were rife with errors, which led to the passage of two reform bills. The ALPR audit may take several months to complete, but we anticipate that the State Auditor will also make concrete recommendations for legislative reforms to reel in this controversial form of mass surveillance.

Related Cases:  Automated License Plate Readers- ACLU of Southern California & EFF v. LAPD & LASD Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)

The History of Cellular Network Security Doesn’t Bode Well for 5G

There’s been quite a bit of media hype about the improvements 5G is set to supposedly bring to users, many of which are no more than telecom talking points. One aspect of the conversation that’s especially important to get right is whether or not 5G will bring much-needed security fixes to cell networks. Unfortunately, we will still need to be concerned about these issues—and more—in 5G.

Past security flaws in the design of cell network infrastructure are being used for everything from large scale SMS spamming to enabling dragnet surveillance by law enforcement and spying in DC via cell site simulators (a.k.a. Stingrays, IMSI-catchers). Longtime cell network security researcher Roger Piqueras Jover has recently published a short but comprehensive reflection on the history of the cell security research that uncovered much of those flaws, and with it, his view of the security outlook for 5G.

Jover draws attention to how rapidly the field of cell network security research has been accelerating. It took researchers over 10 years after GSM was first standardized and deployed to find the first security flaws in the GSM (2G) protocol. For LTE (4G), it took approximately 7 years. Fast forward to the 5G standard, which was finalized  in March 2018. While there are currently no commercial implementations of 5G widely in use yet, researchers have already discovered over 6 critical security flaws in this new protocol.

Standardization efforts simply aren’t keeping up with the rapid rise of critical security flaws. The group responsible for maintaining the standards and incorporating security fixes (the 3GPP) primarily consists of big players in the telco industry, who don’t have much incentive to come up with and incorporate the critical user privacy fixes that are needed.

On the positive side, Jover points out that there are increasing efforts from researchers to explore potential fixes for many of the security problems in cell networks. In the recent past Ericsson has stepped up their efforts to fix some of the vulnerabilities in 5G’s identification and authentication procedures (i.e. the process that takes place between a mobile phone and a cell tower when each is verifying the other is who they claim to be). Similarly, researchers recently published a proof-of-concept paper proposing a PKI (public key infrastructure) & digital certificate system for the connection between mobile phones and cell towers (similar to SSL certificates and HTTPS).

Despite these efforts, for real change to take place, it must come from within: the 3GPP’s biggest players need to embrace the work required to fix the fundamental flaws that have plagued cell networks for years. Until then, our mobile devices are still vulnerable to being caught up in dragnet and targeted surveillance attacks. As it stands, 5G won’t be any sort of panacea—for increasing security, for improving wireless accessibility, or for solving the issues of broadband monopolies that contribute to each of these.

@switchingsocial
Here is another great note taking app: @joplinapp
There are clients for all platforms. Syncing could be done via @nextcloud or other syncing platforms.

Investors in Companies Profiting Off Student Loans Are Worried About Democrats’ Proposals to Cancel Debt

With ambitious proposals from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, momentum for canceling student debt is growing.

The post Investors in Companies Profiting Off Student Loans Are Worried About Democrats’ Proposals to Cancel Debt appeared first on The Intercept.